[171506] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Zekelman)
Sat May 3 08:58:12 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 08:56:08 -0400
To: Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>,nanog@nanog.org
From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@MNSi.Net>
In-Reply-To: <53646753.7070305@vaxination.ca>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In my experience, where Bell Canada has installed FTTP facilities,
CLECs are not given access to these deployments.
The orders come back as "UNAVAILABLE FACILITIES"
At 11:49 PM 02/05/2014, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>I need a sanity check.
>
>An incumbent in Canada has revealed that its voice service on FTTP
>deployments is based on H.248 MEGACO (Media Gateway Controller).
>
>Are there any examples of CLEC access to such FTTP deployments ?
>
>(for instance, an area where the copper was removed, leaving only fibre
>to homes, do CLECs retain competitive access via fibre to homes, or is
>it going out of business or going with pure SIP/VoIP over the regular
>internet connection, instead of using the "quality" voice link in the
>GPON with garanteed bandwidth ?
>
>Can this protocol support the programming of one OLT/MG connecting to
>the Telco's MGC, while the OLT/MG next door connects to the CLEC's MGC ?
>
>Or does the protocol result in MG's "discovering" the nearest MGC and
>connecting to it (making it hard to have multiple MGCs from competing
>telcos).
>
>
>
>
>I have been lead to believe that most OLTs came with a SIP based ATA. It
>appears that H.248 is more telco friendly and scales better. Does this
>mean that H.248 is more widely deployed in FTTH ?
---
Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4
tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409
