[AusNOG] [ISOC-AU-mems] Quigley announces architectural "stakein the ground"
Jason.Sinclair at staff.pipenetworks.com
Thu Sep 17 09:06:16 EST 2009
Interestingly Quigley mentioned that whilst the NBNCo would only be
offering a layer 2 Ethernet style service, he then stated that they
would need to have layer 3 capability to offer QoS, security and
multicast (potentially if they could figure it out).
Also - mentioned that they would provide a POTs port hiked back via SIP
to a softswitch.....
In terms of the other questions his answer was that they are still
working on it in consultation with industry......
Access into the cloud was via a POI concept with locations and
mechanisms yet to be determined.
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Steve Baxter
Sent: Wednesday, 16 September 2009 11:58 PM
To: Paul Brooks; Adrian Chadd
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [ISOC-AU-mems] Quigley announces architectural
"stakein the ground"
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
- 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
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul
> 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
> (e.g. >1500 to allow for options of MPLS, L2TPv3,
> PBB, PBT etc. encapsulation, just in case)
> So what about direct customer<->customer communication? Does
> 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.
This message was scanned by ESVA and is believed to be clean.
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
More information about the AusNOG