[168886] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SIP on FTTH systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Feb 6 07:44:34 2014
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 14:42:39 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1402061325100.24915@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart1921526.PKEeULunTI
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, February 06, 2014 02:29:40 PM Mikael=20
Abrahamsson wrote:
> I disagree on that one as well. It might be in some
> markets, but it's not in all.
I keep using the word "typical", but not sure if you're=20
missing it.
Typical, not limited to, i.e., common, but not the only=20
option.
I'm basing this on what I've seen in various countries=20
across a few continents I've worked in.
> This wasn't incumbents specifically, but just a different
> model to achieve the same thing, give end users access
> to multiple ISPs, multiple "cable TV" vendors, and
> multiple VOIP providers through a neutral network.
Again, just an example I gave, not to say it was the norm.
The countries I was referring to is where the incumbents=20
either owned the infrastructure and were reluctant to open=20
it up to competitors, or were awarded national broadband=20
projects to deploy and run the infrastructure but were not=20
specifically governed to how low the OSI Layer they can open=20
up the infrastructure to.
In other places, it is a business model, in addition to more=20
traditional ways of unbundling. These tend to be more=20
evolved markets, but again, not limited to.
> What do you mean by subscriber management? This worked 10
> years ago, what problem are you saying has been solved
> recently?
End user authentication and management typically being done=20
via PPPoE because that was the best and most secure way to=20
manage customer connections (for some operators, still is).
By DHCP I mean an alternative to PPPoE-based authentication=20
where Option 82 and friends can allow service providers to=20
authenticate customers based on AN port, MAC address, VLAN=20
ID, e.t.c., instead of username/password a la PPPoE. This=20
gets passed as part of initial DHCP transactions.
Rethinking your comment (because I thought you meant DHCP as=20
the way to go for subscriber management when you debunked=20
PPPoE) I'm guessing you refer to simply assigning IP=20
addresses to customer interfaces in FTTH scenarios? No?
Mark.
--nextPart1921526.PKEeULunTI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)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=mV+f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1921526.PKEeULunTI--
