[AusNOG] Industry code for dslam coexistence
pbrooks-ausnog at layer10.com.au
Wed Apr 18 16:33:46 EST 2018
The WC58 wrapped up a few weeks ago and had the documents approved and published only
last week - your timing is impeccable!
(...after kicking off as a second attempt at VDSL2 review back in October 2013 - at
4.5 years is the longest working group I've ever been part of!)
The new Code is C658:2018 /Next-Generation Broadband Systems Deployment in Customer
> C658:2018 Part 1
> <http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/59938/C658_1_2018.pdf> –
> Performance Requirements (4272KB)
> C658:2018 Part 2
> <http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/59939/C658_2_2018.pdf> –
> Methods For Determining Compliance (2275KB)
> C658:2018 Part 3
> <http://commsalliance.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/59940/C658_3_-2018.pdf> –
> Requirements for Deployment Class Systems (3086KB)
> C658:2018 is designed to prevent performance-degrading Unacceptable Interference
> within Customer Cabling that carries Legacy Systems (e.g. ADSL2+ technology) and/or
> Next Generation Broadband Systems (e.g. VDSL2 technology).
> The draft Industry Code is in three Parts:
> * Part 1 requires Next Generation Broadband Systems not to emit Unacceptable
> Excess Power and not to cause Unacceptable Interference to other Higher Priority
> Deployment Class Systems or to Legacy Systems in a Shared Cable Bundle.
> * Part 2 defines the detailed technical methods and calculations required to
> demonstrate those requirements are met.
> * Part 3 provides a list of defined Deployment Classes and a set of Appendices,
> each containing a detailed specification for a Deployment Class. It also
> describes the path to deemed compliance by these Deployment Class Systems.
On 18/04/2018 2:16 PM, David Hughes wrote:
> Hah, thanks, I should have googled myself :)
> So, based on that the Act has been amended to loosely provide protection against
> interference from different technologies, and Comms Alliance WC58 was working to
> revise documents to provide more specifics. So I wonder if WC58 came up with the
> goods? There’s no details of output from the WC on the web site.
> @Paul Brooks - are you still across this mate? Any chance of an update?
>> On 18 Apr 2018, at 1:41 pm, Jason Leschnik <jason at leschnik.me
>> <mailto:jason at leschnik.me>> wrote:
>> Is this it?
>> Using this search in Google `Alliance dslam
>> On 18 April 2018 at 12:57, David Hughes <david at hughes.com.au
>> <mailto:david at hughes.com.au>> wrote:
>> Afternoon all,
>> I recall a while back there being a mention of someone looking at putting
>> together requirements for the happy coexistence of multiple dslams on the same
>> cable plant. The context was for a FTTB provider delivering services in a
>> building that has an NBN FTTB dslam in place. Issues such as interference from
>> multiple vdsl vectoring config etc.
>> I can’t recall where I heard of it or who was working on it, Comms Alliance
>> possibly. Sorry for being so vague, but if you are less vague about this can
>> you let me know the details?
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net <mailto:AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net>
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the AusNOG