alternative to voip gateways
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF. The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems. So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs. I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works. OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream. But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways. This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size? most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method. thoughts?
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors. Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that. As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense. My $.02 Jeremy Austin On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice. On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it. Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice. On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
We’ve been implementing similar DSL systems at large campgrounds for years. There are a huge number of high-density DSLAM solutions out there, and DSL CPE cost practically nothing. As you say, $25K is plenty to pay for the hardware, and a rack is plenty of space. The most time consuming part is wiring the existing POTS lines into amphenol connectors to plug into the DSLAM, 25 pairs at a time. In addition to Calix\Occam, Adtran‘s TotalAccess solution is worth looking into for their carrier-class support. -mel beckman On May 3, 2020, at 5:09 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote: If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it. Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice. On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
Agreed I would do the Adtran Total Access 5000. What you want is the "combo" cards. They combine a SIP FXS gateway and DSL port on one port, aka a Combo port. This would be the way to go, as it doesn't require external splitters to combine a DSL and Voice signal as you are talking about with two separate modules. If cost is a concern, look at Zhone. They have carrier class gear on the cheap. BTW, some of these chassis can support like 1000's of lines out of 1 box. Could do the whole village on a single rack quite easily. On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 10:09 AM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
We’ve been implementing similar DSL systems at large campgrounds for years. There are a huge number of high-density DSLAM solutions out there, and DSL CPE cost practically nothing. As you say, $25K is plenty to pay for the hardware, and a rack is plenty of space. The most time consuming part is wiring the existing POTS lines into amphenol connectors to plug into the DSLAM, 25 pairs at a time.
In addition to Calix\Occam, Adtran‘s TotalAccess solution is worth looking into for their carrier-class support.
-mel beckman
On May 3, 2020, at 5:09 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it.
Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> *To: *"Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM *Subject: *Re: alternative to voip gateways
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote: pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
On May 3, 2020, at 11:09, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
...
The most time consuming part is wiring the existing POTS lines into amphenol connectors to plug into the DSLAM, 25 pairs at a time. ...
-mel beckman
You may already be familiar with this, but leaving it here in case it helps.. https://www.graybar.com/store/en/gb/s66-pre-wired-m2-series-88233982 ..Allen
Yes, that’s what we use. But it means punching down all the wires all over again, or running jumpers if you don’t have enough spare service loop. -mel via cell
On May 3, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) <allenmckinleykitchen@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 3, 2020, at 11:09, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
...
The most time consuming part is wiring the existing POTS lines into amphenol connectors to plug into the DSLAM, 25 pairs at a time. ...
-mel beckman
You may already be familiar with this, but leaving it here in case it helps..
https://www.graybar.com/store/en/gb/s66-pre-wired-m2-series-88233982
..Allen
Thanks for suggestion, as per previous, how easy it to configure? It needs to be understood by laymen if possible, i'm no layman, but im no carrier grade networking guru either, most my setups are 300 odd users, where the gateway and dslam method is cost feasible, but not when your looking at the numbers of this project - hence reason for my post :) Cheers On 5/4/20, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
We’ve been implementing similar DSL systems at large campgrounds for years. There are a huge number of high-density DSLAM solutions out there, and DSL CPE cost practically nothing. As you say, $25K is plenty to pay for the hardware, and a rack is plenty of space. The most time consuming part is wiring the existing POTS lines into amphenol connectors to plug into the DSLAM, 25 pairs at a time.
In addition to Calix\Occam, Adtran‘s TotalAccess solution is worth looking into for their carrier-class support.
-mel beckman
On May 3, 2020, at 5:09 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it.
Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions<http://www.ics-il.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange<http://www.midwest-ix.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP<http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ________________________________ From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
On 5/4/20 6:11 AM, Nick Edwards wrote:
Thanks for suggestion, as per previous, how easy it to configure? It needs to be understood by laymen if possible, i'm no layman, but im no carrier grade networking guru either, most my setups are 300 odd users, where the gateway and dslam method is cost feasible, but not when your looking at the numbers of this project - hence reason for my post:)
I've not used Calix gear, but the Adtran TA5000 supports a Cisco-like CLI. It can also be provisioned entirely using SNMP, if that's more to your liking, and in fact that is how Adtran's in-house provisioning suite works. It also has some TL1 support if you really must... The CLI has some necessary deviations from Cisco IOS, of course, as almost all "industry standard" CLIs do, but you can probably pick it up pretty quickly. If you buy new/prime gear directly from an authorized Adtran disty you also get their provisioning and monitoring suite (AOE) "free" as long as you maintain a support contract (which isn't particularly expensive). It's kinda blah (and Flash-based, but I'm told that's changing by the end of the year...) but does work. -- Brandon Martin
Thanks, this seems far more cost effective. But what about configuration, is it easy enough to configure? I'm told it must be simple to config and understand and if possible web based (im told because I may not always be available they want their basic IT staff to be able to understand and if need be make changes - which that alone scares me none of them understand anything other than windows) Thanks for all the suggestions On 5/3/20, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it.
Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but
you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application
if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other
vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go
nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers
because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere
that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream
48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not
a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch
of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on
a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method
acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
The Calix and Occam systems are web based. I find the Occam interface easier, but I've used it longer. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 5:06:28 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways Thanks, this seems far more cost effective. But what about configuration, is it easy enough to configure? I'm told it must be simple to config and understand and if possible web based (im told because I may not always be available they want their basic IT staff to be able to understand and if need be make changes - which that alone scares me none of them understand anything other than windows) Thanks for all the suggestions On 5/3/20, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it.
Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but
you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application
if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other
vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go
nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers
because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere
that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream
48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not
a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch
of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on
a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method
acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
Adtran has a built in web interface too. I it slow, but it does work. I like CLI better. Overall, the SIP configuration is easy, and ideal for large setups. You define a sip trunk (not system only supports 1 unfortunately) and then each port you just add the sip username and password to that port. On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 6:23 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
The Calix and Occam systems are web based. I find the Occam interface easier, but I've used it longer.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> ------------------------------ *From: *"Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Monday, May 4, 2020 5:06:28 AM *Subject: *Re: alternative to voip gateways
Thanks, this seems far more cost effective. But what about configuration, is it easy enough to configure?
I'm told it must be simple to config and understand and if possible web based (im told because I may not always be available they want their basic IT staff to be able to understand and if need be make changes - which that alone scares me none of them understand anything other than windows)
Thanks for all the suggestions
If you were to outfit them with three chassis of Calix\Occam B6-252s, you'd be under $25k for the whole thing and get ADSL2+ speeds. You would need most of a rack to do it.
Other platforms may or may not be more cost effective or a better solution. Just throwing the idea out there.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: "Jeremy Austin" <jhaustin@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 12:21:17 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but
you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application
if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com
wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other
vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go
nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers
because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
On 5/3/20, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote: pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go
somewhere
that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either
grandstream
48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is
not
a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a
bunch
of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing
on
a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my
method
acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
On 5/4/20 9:44 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
Adtran has a built in web interface too. I it slow, but it does work. I like CLI better.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It does work for most day-to-day tasks, though there are some things you can't do from it and have to drop to the CLI for. Overall, I prefer the CLI. -- Brandon Martin
Thanks guys, much appreciated! Company wants new, not second hand, so it's reasonable to get support contract - at least for first year or two :) Not a lot should ever change once set up, even if staff change, they wont have access to residential SIP details anyway. On 5/5/20, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 5/4/20 9:44 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
Adtran has a built in web interface too. I it slow, but it does work. I like CLI better.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It does work for most day-to-day tasks, though there are some things you can't do from it and have to drop to the CLI for. Overall, I prefer the CLI. -- Brandon Martin
You can get a support contract on used Calix\Occam gear. A company I started helping a couple years ago was able to get a support contract on gear they had owned for 15 years. They price the support based on the number of subscribers served off of their gear, not how many and which devices you use to do it. I could have a chassis per customer and it wouldn't impact the support contract. Well, depending on what you mean by support contract. They won't do hardware replacement with the contract I have, but the gear is cheap enough, it's just easier to replace the gear than to deal with hardware support. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 8:13:51 PM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways Thanks guys, much appreciated! Company wants new, not second hand, so it's reasonable to get support contract - at least for first year or two :) Not a lot should ever change once set up, even if staff change, they wont have access to residential SIP details anyway. On 5/5/20, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 5/4/20 9:44 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
Adtran has a built in web interface too. I it slow, but it does work. I like CLI better.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It does work for most day-to-day tasks, though there are some things you can't do from it and have to drop to the CLI for. Overall, I prefer the CLI. -- Brandon Martin
Thinking out of the box, why not implement a WISP setup using wifi? This kind of gear is more accessible to normal IT staff. Voice can be implemented by VoIP using Wifi too. Regards Baldur søn. 3. maj 2020 07.22 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote: pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
I’ve implemented these kinds of systems both ways, and in my experience, unless the existing copper is in bad condition, it’s always a cheaper, faster, and more reliable solution. Construction costs to hang outdoor radios and run cables is significant. The installation labor for a wireless deployment is intensive. The primary reason WISPs exist is to give people Internet who otherwise don’t have cheap copper connections available. Line-of-site, growing trees, mobile obstructions, and rooftop cable entry are all potential failure points. An in-place copper plant with short runs below a mile can support 20-30 Mbps per user with a DSLAM, and 100+ Mbps using Ethernet-over-Copper, all with no construction costs, and virtually maintenance-free. -mel beckman On May 5, 2020, at 5:06 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote: Thinking out of the box, why not implement a WISP setup using wifi? This kind of gear is more accessible to normal IT staff. Voice can be implemented by VoIP using Wifi too. Regards Baldur søn. 3. maj 2020 07.22 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com<mailto:nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>>: The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice. On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com<mailto:jhaustin@gmail.com>> wrote:
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com<mailto:a.slastenov@gmail.com>> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com<mailto:nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com<mailto:jhaustin@gmail.com>
Been down that road, not a viable option, in fact i'm told if we get this done without much drama we'll be converting our existing (much smaller) wifi sites to copper as well, and since they already have all this copper laid already, might as well use it On 5/5/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Thinking out of the box, why not implement a WISP setup using wifi? This kind of gear is more accessible to normal IT staff.
Voice can be implemented by VoIP using Wifi too.
Regards Baldur
søn. 3. maj 2020 07.22 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote: pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
If you are converting why would you go for copper instead of fiber? The typical gpon olt switch can handle 1024 or 2048 users in one rack unit and equipment is cheap and available. For example this: https://store.ui.com/collections/operator-ufiber/products/ufiber-olt Regards Baldur ons. 6. maj 2020 05.08 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
Been down that road, not a viable option, in fact i'm told if we get this done without much drama we'll be converting our existing (much smaller) wifi sites to copper as well, and since they already have all this copper laid already, might as well use it
On 5/5/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Thinking out of the box, why not implement a WISP setup using wifi? This kind of gear is more accessible to normal IT staff.
Voice can be implemented by VoIP using Wifi too.
Regards Baldur
søn. 3. maj 2020 07.22 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
The huts or cabins whatever you want to call them, are right behind the admin building at entrance, so first is about 300 meters and the furtherest is just under 1 mile
Cost will be an issue, Im sure I will have no problems if I have to install a full rack of gateways and another full of dslams if it costs 150K, over something 1/5th the size in one rack that will cost 200k - since the company is not charging them for internet or voice.
What’s the average loop length? Grandstream is probably OK to 5+ kfeet but you will lose CID before that.
As the low cost option don’t expect them to be trouble-free (or have particularly good vendor support), but they might work in your application if cheap is what makes sense.
My $.02
Jeremy Austin
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 PM Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper
On 5/2/20, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin@gmail.com> wrote: pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might
have
an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
-- Jeremy Austin jhaustin@gmail.com
On Wed May 06, 2020 at 09:17:28AM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
If you are converting why would you go for copper instead of fiber? The typical gpon olt switch can handle 1024 or 2048 users in one rack unit and equipment is cheap and available.
"since they already have all this copper laid already" I think you underestimate the cost of civils to replace copper with fibre. Simon
On 06.05.2020 09.34, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Wed May 06, 2020 at 09:17:28AM +0200, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
If you are converting why would you go for copper instead of fiber? The typical gpon olt switch can handle 1024 or 2048 users in one rack unit and equipment is cheap and available. "since they already have all this copper laid already"
I think you underestimate the cost of civils to replace copper with fibre.
Simon
I own a FTTH based ISP so I believe I know exactly what the cost are. As it is we are smashing the copper based competition. A copper plant is not free to run and either it can not deliver the expected speed or it requires significant investments to get the loop length down. In this project the loop lengths and number of loops do not look too good if higher speeds are expected. I am not trying to suggest what the OP should do, I am just raising the possibility that there might be another way. If you factor in deprecation and future proofing of investment, the investment in fiber might actually result in the better financial result of the company. Even if the initial investment is higher. From a technical standpoint it is clear. The GPON solution will work and deliver good stable internet and phone service. I believe the copper solution has a large chance of unpleasant surprises, it will not be future proof in the slightest and the speeds will be poor. Regards, Baldur
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
I own a FTTH based ISP so I believe I know exactly what the cost are. As it is we are smashing the copper based competition. A copper plant is not free to run and either it can not deliver the expected speed or it requires significant investments to get the loop length down.
Expected speed? You should be comparing FTTH and FTTC.
I am not trying to suggest what the OP should do, I am just raising the possibility that there might be another way. If you factor in deprecation and future proofing of investment, the investment in fiber might actually result in the better financial result of the company. Even if the initial investment is higher.
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL. Masataka Ohta
On 5/7/20 5:13 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
Only if you're comparing entirely new copper plant to existing copper plant (including drops), in my experience. If you compare greenfield to greenfield, the cost of fiber to the prem is not much greater than copper (coax or twisted pair). If you've already got access to existing copper plant, then reusing at least the drops is definitely worth looking into, yes. In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long time ago. The ILEC mostly gets free reign to set the access costs, and they set them sufficiently high as to "discourage" competition from using it where they can get away with it. -- Brandon Martin
Brandon Martin said: In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long time ago.
Brandon, In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench. -mel via cell
On May 7, 2020, at 8:58 AM, Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 5/7/20 5:13 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
Only if you're comparing entirely new copper plant to existing copper plant (including drops), in my experience. If you compare greenfield to greenfield, the cost of fiber to the prem is not much greater than copper (coax or twisted pair).
If you've already got access to existing copper plant, then reusing at least the drops is definitely worth looking into, yes.
In most of the USA, it's simply not cost-feasible to get access to that unless you either are the ILEC or are a well-established CLEC from a long time ago. The ILEC mostly gets free reign to set the access costs, and they set them sufficiently high as to "discourage" competition from using it where they can get away with it. -- Brandon Martin
On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. -- Brandon Martin
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. --
Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk. If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs. Regards, Baldur
Baldur, According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated DSLAM SIP calling capability as the IP PBX interface. Given that only some of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very little bandwidth. Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons .🙂 -mel ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net<mailto:lists.nanog@monmotha.net>> wrote: On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. -- Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk. If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs. Regards, Baldur
That probably depends on your country. Here nothing less than 100 Mbps is acceptable :-). Just pointing out that is not actually possible without rebuilding. To his original query I would suggest simply using CPEs with VoIP ports and skip analog voice. Regards, Baldur On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:03 PM Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Baldur,
According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated DSLAM SIP calling capability as the IP PBX interface. Given that only some of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very little bandwidth.
Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons .🙂
-mel ------------------------------ *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> *Sent:* Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM *To:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: alternative to voip gateways
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin <lists.nanog@monmotha.net> wrote:
On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. --
Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk.
If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs.
Regards,
Baldur
"Acceptable" ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:57:35 PM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways That probably depends on your country. Here nothing less than 100 Mbps is acceptable :-). Just pointing out that is not actually possible without rebuilding. To his original query I would suggest simply using CPEs with VoIP ports and skip analog voice. Regards, Baldur On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:03 PM Mel Beckman < mel@beckman.org > wrote: Baldur, According to Nick Edwards, the OP, the main application is voice, which most any DSLAM will handle easily, and solve his IP PBX line consolidation problem. Instead of physical lines into the PBX, he can use the integrated DSLAM SIP calling capability as the IP PBX interface. Given that only some of the 1700 lines will be in use simultaneously, that amounts to very little bandwidth. Data capacity of 10 or 20 Mbps in this environment would be pure gravy, and 100 Mbps is almost certainly not expected, or needed, for "worker huts". I'm assuming the workers are not all tele-surgeons .🙂 -mel From: NANOG < nanog-bounces@nanog.org > on behalf of Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 12:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org < nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:05 PM Brandon Martin < lists.nanog@monmotha.net > wrote: <blockquote> On 5/7/20 12:03 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
In the OP’s case however, the copper plant is private, and wholly owned and already in operation. So surely in that situation fiber would be much more expensive to dig and trench.
Indeed, I was responding to Ohta's comments regarding copper vs. fiber. In this case, using DSL over the existing plant seems like a slam dunk unless very high speeds are needed or the plant is in very poor condition. Modern VDSL/2 DSLAMs are relatively inexpensive and will push 100Mbps over surprising distances with essentially seamless fallback to ADSL2+ at ~24Mbps for long-reach situations. -- Actually we are told the distances are between 300 meters and 1600 meters. 1700 loops all from a single point. That is going to suck. There will be no vectoring and VDSL speeds starts to drop fast after 500 meters. There is going to be a ton of crosstalk. If you want to deliver 100 Mbps you will need to rebuild the copper plant such that you isolate bundles of 192 loops in nearby cabinets. You need to build fiber and power out there. You need to invest in multiple decentral DSLAMs. Regards, Baldur </blockquote>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree. However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations. Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit. The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit. Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company. (*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending. Regards, Baldur
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there
Of course.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*).
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances.
Optimum? FTTH to 1700 homes in a newly built apartment building, maybe. So?
That probably depends on your country. Here nothing less than 100 Mbps is acceptable :-).
That's FTTC, as I already pointed out. Masataka Ohta
On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi) The copper exists, there is no ripping it out Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
Hi Nick Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs. Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP. Regards Baldur søn. 10. maj 2020 14.51 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi)
The copper exists, there is no ripping it out
Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 8:23:36 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways Hi Nick Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs. Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP. Regards Baldur søn. 10. maj 2020 14.51 skrev Nick Edwards < nick.z.edwards@gmail.com >: On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp > wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi) The copper exists, there is no ripping it out Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP?
Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice. In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the technician only needs to go to the DSLAM to connect you. If you are also getting analog voice, he needs to go to the CO too because voice and DSLAM are no longer cohosted. Regards, Baldur
From someone that runs a DSL plant with CO-derived dial tone (and ATAs\gateways where appropriate), no VoIP is not cheaper and easier at the particular density we can infer from the OP.
What's the "lot of equipment" that "simply does not need to be there"? I have a DSLAM line card that does DSL only or a DSLAM line card that does DSL and POTS. No extra equipment, unless you're counting board-level components. Manage voice configurations on 1700 modems\ATAs or voice configurations on 1/48th of that in line cards? Yes, there are filters required, but I don't see that being a burden. Any ILEC (in the US anyway) dropping analog voice is attempting to go through some regulatory loophole, not because it's a technically superior or more cost effective solution. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:54:01 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP? Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice. In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the technician only needs to go to the DSLAM to connect you. If you are also getting analog voice, he needs to go to the CO too because voice and DSLAM are no longer cohosted. Regards, Baldur
Here we have DSL in cabinets so we can have short loop lengths and DSLAMS that control the entire bundle, to enable vectoring, v35b etc. Since this scheme does not work if there are multiple DSLAMS on a bundle, only the ILEC runs the DSLAMS now. I don't know if they just can't (Nokia) or if the power requirements are infeasible, but they are NOT doing POTS from the cabinets with DSLAMS. The cabinets have splitters and the POTS is routed back to the CO where you will have old equipment doing POTS probably dating 30 years or more. Hence if we want to order a DSL we only pay for the work done at the DSLAM cabinet and we only pay to rent a port in that DSLAM. If we were to order a POTS on top of that, we have to pay for them to connect the customer to the splitter and route him to the CO and then for him to be connected to equipment there too. This is clearly more work than just connecting him to the DSLAM and so it is not free. And then we also have to pay to rent a port on whatever equipment they have at CO. The FXP solution skips all that and uses a tiny bit of data with QoS and the voice quality is fantastic. For fiber there is of course no other way, so why not just do it the same way for all customers? Why pay to rent ports on the CO installed equipment? Well even the ILEC figured that out and started to do it that way. Probably because even for them it is not free to keep running the old equipment at the CO. That stuff uses power and I heard they also have to pay license fees. Also guessing that the reason so many DSL routers have FXP probably means someone are actually using this stuff. At 1700 scale it does not really matter how many there are. These things are going to download the centrally managed config. The OP is going to buy extra equipment to handle voice. At least that is my understanding. My question to him was just a humble suggestion that he could do away with that and just use the for free FXP ports. We have a whole country here doing that, so trust me it works at scale. Regards, Baldur On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:18 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
From someone that runs a DSL plant with CO-derived dial tone (and ATAs\gateways where appropriate), no VoIP is not cheaper and easier at the particular density we can infer from the OP.
What's the "lot of equipment" that "simply does not need to be there"? I have a DSLAM line card that does DSL only or a DSLAM line card that does DSL and POTS. No extra equipment, unless you're counting board-level components.
Manage voice configurations on 1700 modems\ATAs or voice configurations on 1/48th of that in line cards?
Yes, there are filters required, but I don't see that being a burden.
Any ILEC (in the US anyway) dropping analog voice is attempting to go through some regulatory loophole, not because it's a technically superior or more cost effective solution.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
------------------------------ *From: *"Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:54:01 AM *Subject: *Re: alternative to voip gateways
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP?
Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice.
In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the technician only needs to go to the DSLAM to connect you. If you are also getting analog voice, he needs to go to the CO too because voice and DSLAM are no longer cohosted.
Regards,
Baldur
The OP runs their own plant, so they don't need to worry about what some other entity will charge them for things. Put in combo cards and be done with it. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 5:57:59 PM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways Here we have DSL in cabinets so we can have short loop lengths and DSLAMS that control the entire bundle, to enable vectoring, v35b etc. Since this scheme does not work if there are multiple DSLAMS on a bundle, only the ILEC runs the DSLAMS now. I don't know if they just can't (Nokia) or if the power requirements are infeasible, but they are NOT doing POTS from the cabinets with DSLAMS. The cabinets have splitters and the POTS is routed back to the CO where you will have old equipment doing POTS probably dating 30 years or more. Hence if we want to order a DSL we only pay for the work done at the DSLAM cabinet and we only pay to rent a port in that DSLAM. If we were to order a POTS on top of that, we have to pay for them to connect the customer to the splitter and route him to the CO and then for him to be connected to equipment there too. This is clearly more work than just connecting him to the DSLAM and so it is not free. And then we also have to pay to rent a port on whatever equipment they have at CO. The FXP solution skips all that and uses a tiny bit of data with QoS and the voice quality is fantastic. For fiber there is of course no other way, so why not just do it the same way for all customers? Why pay to rent ports on the CO installed equipment? Well even the ILEC figured that out and started to do it that way. Probably because even for them it is not free to keep running the old equipment at the CO. That stuff uses power and I heard they also have to pay license fees. Also guessing that the reason so many DSL routers have FXP probably means someone are actually using this stuff. At 1700 scale it does not really matter how many there are. These things are going to download the centrally managed config. The OP is going to buy extra equipment to handle voice. At least that is my understanding. My question to him was just a humble suggestion that he could do away with that and just use the for free FXP ports. We have a whole country here doing that, so trust me it works at scale. Regards, Baldur On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 12:18 AM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:
From someone that runs a DSL plant with CO-derived dial tone (and ATAs\gateways where appropriate), no VoIP is not cheaper and easier at the particular density we can infer from the OP.
What's the "lot of equipment" that "simply does not need to be there"? I have a DSLAM line card that does DSL only or a DSLAM line card that does DSL and POTS. No extra equipment, unless you're counting board-level components. Manage voice configurations on 1700 modems\ATAs or voice configurations on 1/48th of that in line cards? Yes, there are filters required, but I don't see that being a burden. Any ILEC (in the US anyway) dropping analog voice is attempting to go through some regulatory loophole, not because it's a technically superior or more cost effective solution. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Baldur Norddahl" < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 11:54:01 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP? Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice. In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the technician only needs to go to the DSLAM to connect you. If you are also getting analog voice, he needs to go to the CO too because voice and DSLAM are no longer cohosted. Regards, Baldur </blockquote>
On 5/11/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP?
Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and that CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice.
Not really cheaper, modems with VoIP tend to be a bit more pricey so that 50 odd or CPE now becomes 80-100, doubling our per port cost and what is an FXP? I think you mean FXS port.
In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the
wasnt there a hige shit stom in australia for their new national broadband network making internet ptrimary and phone secondary, a lot of aussies on forums I frequent bitch about its reliability, where even their aged copper services worked fine, not to mention prolonged outages due to storms and the bushfires they had recently, lets hope the world learns from australias mistakes and not go down that path.
wasnt there a hige shit stom in australia for their new national broadband network making internet ptrimary and phone secondary, a lot of aussies on forums I frequent bitch about its reliability, where even their aged copper services worked fine, not to mention prolonged outages due to storms and the bushfires they had recently, lets hope the world learns from australias mistakes and not go down that path.
There are still a few complaints every now and again but fixed line numbers are continuing to drop off a cliff and those residential services which remain have almost all been converted to VOIP via home gateway with an FXS port. Mobile/Cell is where most people ended up. Especially since you can get unlimited calls/txt with some data for about ten bucks a month. It also helps that a number of the mobile providers include wifi-calling so mobile is a viable alternative even in weak cell coverage areas if you have internet. Yes, everyone knows about the reliability/power-failure arguments but in the latest set of bushfires whole exchanges, backhaul services and power distribution cables were destroyed so 8 hours of battery backed up POTS in a local exchange didn't help much. Mark.
On 5/10/20 6:24 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
wasnt there a hige shit stom in australia for their new national broadband network making internet ptrimary and phone secondary, a lot of aussies on forums I frequent bitch about its reliability, where even their aged copper services worked fine, not to mention prolonged outages due to storms and the bushfires they had recently, lets hope the world learns from australias mistakes and not go down that path. There are still a few complaints every now and again but fixed line numbers are continuing to drop off a cliff and those residential services which remain have almost all been converted to VOIP via home gateway with an FXS port.
Mobile/Cell is where most people ended up. Especially since you can get unlimited calls/txt with some data for about ten bucks a month.
It also helps that a number of the mobile providers include wifi-calling so mobile is a viable alternative even in weak cell coverage areas if you have internet.
Yes, everyone knows about the reliability/power-failure arguments but in the latest set of bushfires whole exchanges, backhaul services and power distribution cables were destroyed so 8 hours of battery backed up POTS in a local exchange didn't help much.
California exposed one big weakness last year though: purposeful shutdowns of the grid. These lasted on average about 3 days which is probably longer than any battery backup your home voip solution can stay up with. The other gaping problem is that even if I have a generator at home (which I do because... PG&E), there is no guarantee that my IP bits will land on something that has power. Cable and Cellular were apparently especially useless. I pleasantly found out that my POTS/DSL provider kept the lights on during the shutdown. Lots of people were in for a rude awakening, and since this is destined to be our new normal there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers every fall. We need to keep battery backup requirements, and expand them to all last mile IP bits. The need to call 911 has not gone away. Mike
We need to keep battery backup requirements, and expand them to all last mile IP bits. The need to call 911 has not gone away.
For sure. I was merely observing that the conversion of POTS to VOIP in Australia didn't create a nation-wide disaster as the pearl-clutchers once predicted. In fact, if anything, the same folk who complained about the so-called largesse of a nationwide IP last-mile are strangely silent now that WFH is de rigueur. To your point, the original plan was 90+% passive optical back to major exchanges so the infrastructure was largely invulnerable to wide-scale power shutdowns/failures. All a residence has to do is feed a 7W NTD to stay connected. Mark.
On 5/11/20 1:31 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
We need to keep battery backup requirements, and expand them to all last mile IP bits. The need to call 911 has not gone away. For sure. I was merely observing that the conversion of POTS to VOIP in Australia didn't create a nation-wide disaster as the pearl-clutchers once predicted.
In fact, if anything, the same folk who complained about the so-called largesse of a nationwide IP last-mile are strangely silent now that WFH is de rigueur.
To your point, the original plan was 90+% passive optical back to major exchanges so the infrastructure was largely invulnerable to wide-scale power shutdowns/failures. All a residence has to do is feed a 7W NTD to stay connected.
Is this expecting ftth? Obviously things like DSLAM's and CMTS's require power. But all of this doesn't perfectly emulate the POTS requirements since it is my responsibility to feed power to the CPE my wifi routers, etc. What we saw last fall is that going long on gas/propane power generator companies is a pretty good bet and works fine in my neck of woods (in the boonies and the gold country) , but I don't see how that scales when you turn off the power to, oh say, Oakland or San Jose (or at least parts of them), which they did and will keep doing for the foreseeable future. Mike
We opted for Adtran TA5000's with 48 port VDSL2 vectoring combo cards, going by expected losses we expect to have more than 50mbps d/l at all cabins, we are going to lock them at 50 anyway sincve we reply on RF to get data in first place. and use a central splitter to separate vdsl and POTS at each cabin, must like everybody did adsl, apparently this is largely how they do it in Europe vdsl and pots on same line (just on a much bigger scale than us). This gives them their high speed data and reliable POTS - since if the residential areas loses power, not relying on end user SIP, their voice will still work when their modems (and area) is without power. We were advised that having an inline microfilter - like adsl, would be more problematic at vdsl since it is essentially a bridge tap - something we all know is bad, it would be much greater issue, and the central splitter unit we looking at using allegedly avoids this problem. The cost of the cards (and chassis) would be not justified for small operations, but at our numbers its actually a cost saving over the dual devices path, as well as the metallic line testing ability. Thanks to all for advice. On 5/12/20, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 5/11/20 1:31 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
We need to keep battery backup requirements, and expand them to all last mile IP bits. The need to call 911 has not gone away. For sure. I was merely observing that the conversion of POTS to VOIP in Australia didn't create a nation-wide disaster as the pearl-clutchers once predicted.
In fact, if anything, the same folk who complained about the so-called largesse of a nationwide IP last-mile are strangely silent now that WFH is de rigueur.
To your point, the original plan was 90+% passive optical back to major exchanges so the infrastructure was largely invulnerable to wide-scale power shutdowns/failures. All a residence has to do is feed a 7W NTD to stay connected.
Is this expecting ftth? Obviously things like DSLAM's and CMTS's require power. But all of this doesn't perfectly emulate the POTS requirements since it is my responsibility to feed power to the CPE my wifi routers, etc. What we saw last fall is that going long on gas/propane power generator companies is a pretty good bet and works fine in my neck of woods (in the boonies and the gold country) , but I don't see how that scales when you turn off the power to, oh say, Oakland or San Jose (or at least parts of them), which they did and will keep doing for the foreseeable future.
Mike
"Integrated metallic testing on the combo cards helps reduce truck rolls" I can't stress this feature enough. Being mainly a data only CLEC, we wanted to buy the cheaper, non-combo, data only DSL cards. However, Adtran, Calix, Zhone, and Nokia confirmed that without the SIP to FXS combo function, you loose the Integrated metallic testing" This means you can't test loop length (without a dsl modem trained on the other end), can't test if you have a cross, foreign voltage, etc. Yes, this can be done with a field tester, but the cost of sending a tech out to do that is much more of an expense. DSL only data ports were around $30 a port, and combo were like $50 a port from what I remember. On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 8:08 PM Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:16 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP?
Because it is cheaper and easier? It is a lot of equipment there simply does not need to be there. If you have DSL you have CPE equipment and
On 5/11/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote: that
CPE equipment can have FXP out for very little extra. You also save having filters to separate DSL and voice.
Not really cheaper, modems with VoIP tend to be a bit more pricey so that 50 odd or CPE now becomes 80-100, doubling our per port cost
and what is an FXP? I think you mean FXS port.
In any case, even the ILEC here is dropping analog and delivering phone services via VoIP and FXP out on the CPE. I believe because the
wasnt there a hige shit stom in australia for their new national broadband network making internet ptrimary and phone secondary, a lot of aussies on forums I frequent bitch about its reliability, where even their aged copper services worked fine, not to mention prolonged outages due to storms and the bushfires they had recently, lets hope the world learns from australias mistakes and not go down that path.
indeed, otherwise thats making the data the critical compnent and voice an add on extra which is not whats going no here :) On 5/11/20, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
If POTS last mile is available, why complicate it with VoIP?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2020 8:23:36 AM Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways
Hi Nick
Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs.
Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP.
Regards
Baldur
søn. 10. maj 2020 14.51 skrev Nick Edwards < nick.z.edwards@gmail.com >:
On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp > wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can
be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100
per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated
over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi)
The copper exists, there is no ripping it out
Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about
the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now
does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It
could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
On 5/10/20 6:23 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Hi Nick
Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs.
Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP.
The big issue here is battery backup. Being in Northern California these days, this isn't an academic problem anymore. One of the neat things I discovered about this new fangled dslam/pots termination is that they can get battery backup from the CO using legacy twisted pairs. Mike
yes, POTS is the critical bit, the internet/data is an extra without guarantee, ie it is not a critical component, voice is. On 5/10/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nick
Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs.
Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP.
Regards
Baldur
søn. 10. maj 2020 14.51 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi)
The copper exists, there is no ripping it out
Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
On 5/10/20 5:56 PM, Nick Edwards wrote:
yes, POTS is the critical bit, the internet/data is an extra without guarantee, ie it is not a critical component, voice is.
Voice may be a critical component regulationwise, especially with CO based battery backup. But in the rest of life IP bits are way more important. I can get a generator to run my CPE and router, but if the provider can't be bothered to power the first hop, then i'm pretty well screwed. In California during PG&E's massive power outages you couldn't get E911 even if you had power to your CPE in way too many cases. This is was a huge fail. Mike
On 5/10/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nick
Have you considered using CPE DSL routers with VoIP and FXP analog out? Decentralized. That's what everyone are doing here. Might be free depending on where you get the CPEs.
Or simply getting VoIP handsets. Lots of cheap DECT bases with VoIP.
Regards
Baldur
søn. 10. maj 2020 14.51 skrev Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/20, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:14 AM Masataka Ohta < mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
Investment for FTTH is 10 times or more than that for plain DSL.
We are assuming the copper plant is already there otherwise I will respectfully disagree.
However the economic is not as simple as you might think. Lets do some calculations.
Assume we can build the fiber plant for 1 million USD (*). This fiber can be depreciated over 25 years. That means we only take USD 40,000/year of the company profit.
The copper plant is already there but the DSLAM is missing. Assume USD 100 per port plus USD 100 per DSL CPE. This equipment can only be depreciated over 5 years. With 1700 ports this gives USD 68,000/year of the company profit.
a 48 port dslam is 2200 (still awaiting cots on line cards for above mentioned chassis) so its about 45 per port, CPE is about 50 a device in bulk (inc 4 gb ports, wifi)
The copper exists, there is no ripping it out
Due to location RF links are used for data, so no need to give each cabin "future proof" since unless a carrier will run fibre to us for 100's miles at their cost - it just aint happenin, the cost is extremely prohibitive.
Not claiming these number are anything but fantasy as I know nothing about the layout of the project. Just illustrating that sometimes more money now does not necessary means less profit for a company.
(*) yes 1700 installs could be done for that in optimum circumstances. It could also be much more expensive, all depending.
Regards,
Baldur
Thank you, will do, but I am to assume that this MSAN devices combine the dslam and voice, like the gateway and dslam all in one? That we point the dsl to the mikrotik asnd teh voice to our freepbx box? I have zero experience with high end gear :) On 5/2/20, Andrey Slastenov <a.slastenov@gmail.com> wrote:
Look at MSAN solution. Like Huawei UA5000 or similar solutions from other vendors.
Regards, Andrey
2 мая 2020 г., в 07:21, Nick Edwards <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> написал(а):
I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF.
The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems.
So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs.
I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works.
OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream.
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size?
most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method.
thoughts?
hey,
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
Huawei was already suggested and Nokia ISAM also works very well for your application https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/intelligent-services-access-manager-... Majority of the small consumer gateways (including the 48p ones) will not work on long loops, they are ment to be used inside a building etc. -- tarko
Innomedia is decent as well, but again it all depends on loop lengths. Might want to look at more of a carrier system. Something like a Calix E7, E5 or C7 line. You could probably pick up a C7 chassis on the used market and fill it up with ADSL or VDSL cards that will push dial-tone at least 2x as far as they will push DSL. At least in the 10 mile rage. Although at some point, when you're out past DSL range things like old-school load coils will help with call quality. -----Original Message----- From: "Tarko Tikan" <tarko@lanparty.ee> Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2020 3:48am To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: alternative to voip gateways hey,
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
Huawei was already suggested and Nokia ISAM also works very well for your application https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/intelligent-services-access-manager-... Majority of the small consumer gateways (including the 48p ones) will not work on long loops, they are ment to be used inside a building etc. -- tarko
Thanks, I know the vega marketing says 7 kilometers, I've used them before at 4 kilometers with at 4REN, I agree the grandstreams are cheap and as someone pointed out not very good for line length, I planned to get my hands on one and test it at furthest location, the Versa dslams (which are re badged planet's) are running from a private reply I got run up to at least 3.5 miles with speeds averaging 16mpbs down and 1 up, so cheaper gear sounds ok, and my understanding of the dslams a child can enable it, its very user friendly and I've used both types of gateways before and both are easy 3 minute setups. I dont envision huaweis or nokias being 3 step user friendly :) On 5/2/20, Tarko Tikan <tarko@lanparty.ee> wrote:
hey,
But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways.
Huawei was already suggested and Nokia ISAM also works very well for your application
https://www.nokia.com/networks/products/intelligent-services-access-manager-...
Majority of the small consumer gateways (including the 48p ones) will not work on long loops, they are ment to be used inside a building etc.
-- tarko
There's likely an enormous amount of ADSL\VDSL DSLAM blades and chassis out there that you can pick up for a song. Buy the ones that do POTS and DSL in one. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Edwards" <nick.z.edwards@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 11:20:40 PM Subject: alternative to voip gateways I'm looking at a new sister company we just took over, their remote village has 1700 analogue phone lines to the workers huts, but they go nowhere past the MDF. The office runs voip, now i'm told i have to get phones to the workers because the <lots of explicit words> AKA previous owners of that business stopped the build when they ran into financial problems. So my plan is to utilize the existing many miles worth of copper pairs. I'm looking at throwing them into Versa Dslams that use pppoe pass through, throw in a mikoTik 1036 as pppoe server, and we got spare R710 i can use as radius server, and by my limited knowledge this works. OK data done, but... now all those pots out lines need to go somewhere that can handle 1700 or more lines, I am looking at either grandstream 48 port FXS gateways or sangoma vega 50 ports (which Ill use as 48 so theres a 1:1 match with dslams) the vega 3050 probably wont be used because they are more than twice the price of grandstream. But this all results in a sh1te load of 48 port gateways (power is not a concern), but wondering if there is another solution that is more cost effective? Seems the regular NEC's Siemens and so on might have an option but I can imagine it will be far more expensive than a bunch of individual gateways. This project is in my mind workable, but i've not done such a thing on a large scale. Those who have experience in this field care to chime in? is my method acceptable or not for such a project size? most pbx's I've done are only few hundred analogue lines where gateways are more suited and definitely more cost effective, at all our locations we use freepbx which works perfectly, and we know the beefyness of the box we'll need to install to handle this load, thats not a problem if we go down the gateway method. thoughts?
participants (15)
-
Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) -
Andrey Slastenov -
Baldur Norddahl -
Brandon Martin -
Colton Conor -
Jeremy Austin -
Mark Delany -
Masataka Ohta -
Mel Beckman -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hammett -
Nick Edwards -
Shawn L -
Simon Lockhart -
Tarko Tikan