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

[McDonald Richards]

Steering away from the voice discussion slightly - I am actually interested
in knowing if they have considered selling multicast "channels" much in the
way they license existing spectrum to broadcasters and if they'll provide
CIR channels for that traffic ;)

Macca


-----Original Message-----
From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net
[mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of Paul Brooks
Sent: Thursday, 17 September 2009 10:18 AM
To: Jason Sinclair
Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
Subject: Re: [AusNOG] [ISOC-AU-mems] Quigley announces architectural
"stakein the ground"

Jason Sinclair wrote:
> 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).
>   
Apart from a Layer2 ethernet VLAN-style service, TR-144 includes a 
'Layer 3' option similar to the L2TP model, and there is debate about 
whether NBNCo should incorporate something like this within the service 
mix it provides directly, or whether this is a contestable  form of 
connectivity that wholesale customers of NBNCo should do instead and 
leave NBNCo doing layer-2 only. There are some pros - may make it easy 
for current Telstra Wholesale ISPs to migrate, but also some cons, and 
AFAIK more of the arguments to and fro are about commercial opportunity 
rather than technical capability.
This particular aspect is something I'd like to see more debate on in 
here - it certainly isn't fixed in stone yet, so we as the directly 
affected parties should work out what we would like NBNCo to do, and 
what we would like them to keep their paws right out of.

> Also - mentioned that they would provide a POTs port hiked back via SIP
> to a softswitch.....
>   
Well, this would depend a little on the choice of vendors - some ONTs 
have built-in PSTN ports and some form of connectivity (possibly 
SIP/H.323, possibly some sort of derived TDM channel) back to the OLT, 
some provide multiple ethernet ports and would need an external 
ATA-style device to provide a PSTN service.
I expect there will be an argument from government that a built-in PSTN 
port is mandatory, to provide emergency call capability if nothing else.

It will also depend a lot on input from industry (ie us people) on how 
we want to see those PSTN ports presented as a wholesale service 
interface - and whether we even want that provided as a service 
interface or not, and prefer to supply own ATAs and devices instead of 
using a built-in capability.
For example, I can't see too many wholesale-customers-of-NBNco AusNOGers 
getting excited about a V5.2 interface for aggregated telephony on the 
back of each OLT.

Paul.

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog