+1 here we do the same exact thing with our ftth and ont¹s separate vlan with h.248 gw¹s sitting on it and you just point the profile of the voice port to the gw. There is a reason why they are doing things this way, as current regulation does not force them to give you access to there fiber network. Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / carlos@race.com / http://www.race.com On 5/3/14, 6:48 AM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
We use H.248 in our CLEC area. The voice service for that ONT runs on a specified VLAN for that ONT, so if we had to share our infrastructure with other CLECs we could do that.
Frank
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:50 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco
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 ?