[AusNOG] [ISOC-AU-mems] Quigley announces architectural "stake in the ground"

[Steve Baxter]

Well there goes the diversity of access offering ! Over fibre that means
less but only time will tell if it shuts out new technology advances
(ADSL1 -> ADSL2+, bonded last mile Ethernet, Annex M etc as examples of
advances that occurred in the copper world).

What is also important to know here is:

- how does a service provider access the cloud (technology);
- where will they do it from (state based, CCA or similar, ESA or
similar);
- what is the cost of the leg into the cloud;
- what will be the contention inside the network to be built;
- how do multiple parties get the ability to feed multicast;

With an unfavorable combination of one or more of the above this could
be a depressingly hard way provide a competitive and desirable service
to end users. What if they provide access from the state capitals from a
super POP and then charge $50+ per mbit/sec per month for access to the
cloud ? 

There is a lot more detail to come about this one size fits all solution
for the rest of our lives, I look forward to seeing that detail. I hope
more thought goes into it than has done with the initial concept. 

Cheers,

SB



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> Brooks
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 September 2009 6:24 AM
> To: Adrian Chadd
> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net; ISOC-AU Members Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [ISOC-AU-mems] Quigley announces architectural
"stake in the ground"
> 
> Adrian Chadd wrote:
> 
> 	On Wed, Sep 16, 2009, Mark Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 		The dumber the better ... ideally support for direct
customer site to
> 		wholesale aggregation site larger than 1500 byte
Ethernet frames.
> 		(e.g. >1500 to allow for options of MPLS, L2TPv3,
Q-in-Q, Mac-in-MAC,
> 		PBB, PBT etc. encapsulation, just in case)
> 
> 
> 
> 	So what about direct customer<->customer communication? Does
that have
> 	to pass through your aggregation layer(s) ?
> 
> 
> 
> If nothing else, the lawful intercept obligations would suggest yes. I
can't see these requirements
> being relaxed in the NBN world.
> 
> This need not be a significant performance penalty - if the access
network is some form of PON, this
> looks much like a DSLAM with virtual point-to-point links to each home
in any case. The upstream
> packets from one home have to go up to the active OLT before they can
be turned around and sent back
> to another home - the backplane of the OLT, or a big ethernet switch
nearby can be treated as an
> aggregation point with negligable time penalty.
> 
> 
> --
> Paul Brooks               |         Mob +61 414 366 605
> Layer 10 Advisory         |         Ph  +61 2 9402 7355
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Layer 10 - telecommunications strategy & network design
> 
> --
> This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
> Click here to report this message as spam.
<http://mail.thebaxters.com/cgi-bin/learn-msg.cgi?id=>

--
This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.