Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato@coldwater.org> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato < aplato@coldwater.org > wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" < alter3d@alter3d.ca > To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" < bill@herrin.us > To: "Jay Ashworth" < jra@baylink.com > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth < jra@baylink.com > wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" < jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca > It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers.
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Art, In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org> wrote:
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility.
________________________________ From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato@coldwater.org> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable.
Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org> wrote:
That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available.
- Pete
On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers.
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Scott, Thanks for the warning. I am planning on having those dialogues with any potential vendors, as well as ask them for active references. Art. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato@coldwater.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:54:06 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? Art, In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org> wrote:
I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility.
________________________________ From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato@coldwater.org> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable.
Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system.
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato <aplato@coldwater.org> wrote:
That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d@alter3d.ca> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available.
- Pete
On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote:
I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO.
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> To: "Jay Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many service providers to provide retail services over the last mile network. As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the taxpayers.
It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of my municipality? Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed. A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective. -r
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed.
You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs.
A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective.
Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access.
-r
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other. -r PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_. Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[[rs@seastrom.com]]> wrote:
Scott Helms <[[khelms@zcorum.com]]> writes:
> In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open > access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done > using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access > in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but > on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed.
You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs.
A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective.
Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access.
-r
--
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- [[http://twitter.com/kscotthelms]] --------------------------------
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT.
-r
PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_.
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[[rs@seastrom.com]]> wrote:
Scott Helms <[[khelms@zcorum.com]]> writes:
> In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open > access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done > using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access > in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but > on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed.
You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs.
A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet install from an open access perspective.
Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access.
-r
--
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- [[http://twitter.com/kscotthelms]] --------------------------------
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT.
I am speculating here, Scott, and perhaps Frank, who runs the boxes, will chime in, but my understanding of the Calix E series is that you can separate the *traffic* on a per port basis, even on the GPON cards, as to where that traffic is routed to, presumably by VLAN. I don't think, on rereading your post, that that's what you actually mean, though; I think you're asking about something which I myself got to yesterday afternoon: Can you separate the *control plan* on an ISP by ISP basis: is it possible to give ISPs whose clients are on specific ports of an access mux like an OLT *control over only those ports*, leaving card- and chassis- global functions for the L2 operator? (Possibly with the optimization of allowing card-global functions if all the ports on the card are owned by that operator, or unassigned.) It's a very good question, and the next nail I was going to hammer. I'm betting the answer is presently "no; you'll have to put a smart OAM&P layer in front of it", myself. Can anyone who's used such Access multiplexers comment on this? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol) to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's implemented in the Calix devices is remote. Tom T On 06/02/2013 10:56 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
...
Can you separate the *control plan* on an ISP by ISP basis: is it possible to give ISPs whose clients are on specific ports of an access mux like an OLT *control over only those ports*, leaving card- and chassis- global functions for the L2 operator? (Possibly with the optimization of allowing card-global functions if all the ports on the card are owned by that operator, or unassigned.)
It's a very good question, and the next nail I was going to hammer.
I'm betting the answer is presently "no; you'll have to put a smart OAM&P layer in front of it", myself.
Can anyone who's used such Access multiplexers comment on this?
Cheers, -- jra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Taylor" <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com>
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol) to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's implemented in the Calix devices is remote.
So, that's pushing the control stuff into an API and adding AAA? Cause I'd be happy with multi-user auth on the CLI, and assigning an 'owner' to each port... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[[rs@seastrom.com]]> wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT.
Every PON OLT that I have touched has supported both vlan-per-customer (has scaling issues) and vlan-per-service configuration abstractions. There are other ways to do it too (double and triple tagging) but to keep it simple if one creates profiles along the lines of: SP1-VOIP SP1-VIDEO SP1-INTARWEBZ and repeats for sp2, sp3, etc... trunk out the top, split off vlans and backhaul as appropriate (choose wisely!) with appropriate QoS if you like, to equal access provider. Provisioning the ONT/ONU and the inter-provider interface to do so (REST XML? JSON? something else?) is left as an exercise to the implementer. Reading this: https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/gpon/gpon-vlans-and-gem-po... may prove informative for the GPON case. -r
Robert, Thanks for the information, I either missed VLAN per sub set up which does make PON L2 sharing virtually the same as AE or the version of hardware/firmware I last worked on didn't support it. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <rs@seastrom.com> wrote:
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Robert E. Seastrom <[[rs@seastrom.com ]]> wrote:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the same OLT.
Every PON OLT that I have touched has supported both vlan-per-customer (has scaling issues) and vlan-per-service configuration abstractions. There are other ways to do it too (double and triple tagging) but to keep it simple if one creates profiles along the lines of:
SP1-VOIP SP1-VIDEO SP1-INTARWEBZ
and repeats for sp2, sp3, etc... trunk out the top, split off vlans and backhaul as appropriate (choose wisely!) with appropriate QoS if you like, to equal access provider.
Provisioning the ONT/ONU and the inter-provider interface to do so (REST XML? JSON? something else?) is left as an exercise to the implementer.
Reading this:
https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/gpon/gpon-vlans-and-gem-po... may prove informative for the GPON case.
-r
-- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
participants (5)
-
Art Plato -
Jay Ashworth -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Scott Helms -
Tom Taylor