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

Thu Sep 17 11:22:46 EST 2009

I should have made something else clear.

NBN Co's current Interconnection would be via Ethernet giving you  
direct access via a vlan to each subscriber. You can run PPPoE or  
layer 3 IPv4 or 6. They are working through how to make that work with  
multicast. Multicast could end up with its own vlan.

L2TP will be offered as a legacy aggregation option.

The backhaul model is in the air but Quigley is aware that some access  
seekers would prefer a fixed cost high bandwidth backhaul service.

Cheers,

jsl

On 17/09/2009, at 10:35 AM, John Lindsay <jlindsay at internode.com.au>  
wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d1b9d62d/attachment.html>