[187471] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cable Operator List
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Tue Feb 2 11:03:19 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMDdSzMSsvUmCBmQGN3hXxvpCMYG55UuurE9x-52vj+7zF2wbA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 11:03:16 -0500
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Colton,
You're only going to find very small, old, or not certified (usually still
very small) CMTSs that only do layer 2. All of the major vendors are doing
layer 3 because we've found out over time that not doing it is more
problematic. Having said that, if you're looking for a more ONT/DSLAM type
of install there is a new type of CMTSs that look at lot like traditional
telco DLC/BLC deployments.
https://intx15.ncta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/17-Remote-PHY.pdf
The remote PHY+MAC boxes are basically mini-CMTSs and they typically rely
on something upstream handling layer 3. The remote PHY boxes are different
as they don't even do a complete layer 2 and instead forward DOCSIS frames
back to a centralized CMTS/CCAP.
Scott Helms
Chief Technology Officer
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Graham,
>
> What is DSG? Yes, I am really looking for a CMTS to perform layer 2 just =
as
> our DSLAMs and GPON do today. All layer 3 will be upstream. I would want =
to
> handle DHCP upstream, but have the CMTS insert Option 82 if that is a
> feature. Not sure what specific CMTS stuff you need.
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Graham Johnston <johnstong@westmancom.com=
>
> wrote:
>
> > Colton,
> >
> > It really depends on what features you are after. I've demo'd one of t=
he
> > small 1/2RU C-DOCSIS CMTSs, and they certainly work. For us though it
> was
> > a non-starter as we needed support for DSG and it didn't have it. If a=
ll
> > you are after is basic internet connectivity there is Pico Digital,
> Vecima,
> > Sumavision, as well as others. Many of the C-DOCSIS CMTSs seem either
> only
> > support, or are more often meant to support layer 2 operations where th=
e
> > routing happens upstream from the CMTS.
> >
> > Graham Johnston
> > Network Planner
> > Westman Communications Group
> > 204.717.2829
> > johnstong@westmancom.com
> > =EF=81=90=EF=80=A0think green; don't print this email.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Colton Conor
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:00 AM
> > To: Daniel Corbe
> > Cc: NANOG
> > Subject: Re: Cable Operator List
> >
> > Well, maybe NANOG's not a bad place for this post then! I would like to
> > know more about the data-only side of CMTS systems, and who the main
> > vendors are.
> >
> > We have MDU properties where there is either old inside CAT3 phone wire=
,
> or
> > coaxial cable. We have looked and are very familiar with the multiple
> > technologies that work over phone lines namely VDSL2 and G.FAST. Howeve=
r,
> > using the coaxial cable seems to be a much better solution than using t=
he
> > phone wires.
> >
> > So I am looking for compacts, low cost CMTS systems. Based on the specs=
,
> I
> > am looking for something at least DOCSIS 3.0 capable, with at least 16X=
4
> > output. Something with the ability to upgrade to software upgrade to
> DOCSIS
> > 3.1 would be nice, but I doubt that would be a low cost solution.
> >
> > Whats out there for small operators that don't want a large chassis bas=
ed
> > system to feed an entire town with.
> >
> > So far I have found the
> > http://picodigital.com/product-details.php?ID=3DminiCMTS200a which seem=
s
> to
> > retail for under $5000.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Daniel Corbe <dcorbe@hammerfiber.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 2, 2016, at 8:42 AM, Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are there any mailing lists out there dedicated for cable/MSO type
> > > > operators?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm curious about this too.
> > >
> > > I=E2=80=99m not a cable operator (in that I haven=E2=80=99t successfu=
lly registered
> for a
> > > cable franchise yet) but I do operate a docsis network and I=E2=80=99=
ve
> > > successfully negotiated the treacherous waters of obtaining and
> providing
> > > content to my users.
> > >
> > > I=E2=80=99m still a bit green behind the ears but I could probably of=
fer some
> > > measure of assistance if you have a specific question.
> > >
> > > -Daniel
> > >
> > >
> >
>
