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

[John Lindsay]

I'm at the CommsAlliance briefing and meeting with NBN Co in  
Melbourne. The network reference diagram on the screen envisages  
various forms of access at every layer.

There is another of these sessions in Brisbane.

CA members are welcome to participate in the working group putting the  
model together. Others are welcome to watch and comment.

Get involved or it will be done to you.

Cheers,

jsl

On 17/09/2009, at 9:52 AM, "McDonald Richards" <macca at vocus.com.au>  
wrote:

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