[168915] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SIP on FTTH systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Thu Feb 6 12:06:48 2014
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:06:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <52F3BA7F.1050404@vaxination.ca>
Reply-To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart2615678.Vh4vJltJuN
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thursday, February 06, 2014 06:38:23 PM Jean-Francois=20
Mezei wrote:
> When an incumbent already has PPPoE deployed for its DSL,
> putting FTTH on PPPoE makes it simpler.
And that is the practical issue I saw (and still see). A lot=20
of operators just continue with it because it is maturely=20
deployed in their networks, and attempting DHCP may not be=20
as easy.
Would I recommend trying DHCP, hell yes!
> And PPPoE really simplifies wholesale systems.
> You do not want the incumbent/wholesaler to perform DHCP.
> This is a HUGE headache. We have that in Canada for
> cable wholesale (TPIA). The incumbent has to micromanage
> each ISPs IP blocks and carve subnets for each CMTS (for
> cable).
>=20
> For as much as everyone hates PPPoE, it makes for
> managememnt of a wholesale systems much much easier.
In one country I worked, we pressured the incumbent to offer=20
us Layer 2 backhaul instead of Layer 3, for the very same=20
reasons. Co-managing IP address assignments, e.t.c., was=20
problematic, especially because they were not sure how large=20
their network was going to grow, which presented us with=20
planning challenges in how we pre-assign address space for=20
each of their service PoP's.
Of course, because the regulator had done their job re:=20
unbundling the fibre, they didn't care how wholesale=20
services were actually provided over said fibre. And yes,=20
the incumbent jumped at the chance not to offer Layer 2=20
backhaul, because then they knew everything we were up to=20
(to some degree of measure).
> Ideally, there would be some protocol where the CPE would
> setup a layer 2 SVC to the ISP, after which the ISP can
> provide DHCP services etc.
Some of the vendors I've worked with don't support LNS=20
functionality on their current generation BNG's. Just LAC.=20
In this scenario, for PPPoE-centric operators and=20
wholesalers, VPLS has been used to backhaul customer=20
traffic, as opposed to L2TP, and recently, some vendors are=20
now able to do this over EoMPLS pw's instead.
If you have some control over the AN's that go into the=20
incumben's/wholesaler's CO, you can get that Layer 2=20
connection (VPLS or EoMPLS pw) between your backbone and the=20
CPE, that way.
Mark.
--nextPart2615678.Vh4vJltJuN
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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=/fRc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart2615678.Vh4vJltJuN--
