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

[John Lindsay]

It's lecture and question mode.

Nutshell from Quigley:

FTTP
or next best thing (radio, satellite)
Ethernet
L2 with security, qos, multicast
GPON
RF modulated on wavelength for TV and PayTV
POTS ports via ATA using SIP over another vlan

Dark fibre as an option.

Point to point biz services provided.

Layer 3 provided by NBN Co, not likely.

Trade press has been discussing batteries today. Quigley would love to  
avoid them.

Go get involved with the CA working group. If you or your employer is  
a member you can contribute directly. Anyone can get read access. I  
think the eventual CA model will be the model adopted for residential  
grade Internet.

Cheers,

jsl

On 17/09/2009, at 10:16 AM, Paul Grehan <pgrehan at onthenet.com.au> wrote:

> Brisbane has been and gone (Tuesday the 15th)....we'll await  
> Industry connection 4 I guess.....
>
> Sydney and Melbourne are full also.
>
> -P
>
> John Lindsay wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20090917/4ef7517f/attachment.html>