At 05:28 PM 31-01-97 -0800, Bharat Ranjan wrote:
Check out a product called 'Internet Thruway" that routes a call based on the Called Number. The idea is for telcos to implement this product as a back-end to their access network so calls being made to a Thruway provider never reach the voice network. It is instead sent (via IP and L2F) directly to the ISP's network. SBC is already committed to deploying this in parts of Texas.
It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still have to go through at least the first voice switch. But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right. --Kent ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks 1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400 Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe@6SigmaNets.com Technical Expertise for PacBell NAP and PacBell Internet Services
Check out a product called 'Internet Thruway" that routes a call based on the Called Number. The idea is for telcos to implement this product as a back-end to their access network so calls being made to a Thruway provider never reach the voice network. It is instead sent (via IP and L2F) directly to the ISP's network. SBC is already committed to deploying this in parts of Texas.
It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still have to go through at least the first voice switch.
But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right.
They're also looking at deploying it in parts of Missouri. IMHO, the cost is perfect (at least in MO), but I'm leery of the telcos having that much control over the network. Also, I hear L2TP is better than L2F, but haven't read the drafts. Anyone want to back me up on this line of questioning? Timothy
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Tim Brown wrote:
They're also looking at deploying it in parts of Missouri. IMHO, the cost is perfect (at least in MO), but I'm leery of the telcos having that much control over the network. Also, I hear L2TP is better than L2F, but
And the telcos have no control of the network now? Let's see....if Ameritech is doing repair on voice equipment, and some ham-handed tech who just started yesterday destroys one (or more) of our DS-1's....no more connectivity to that customer, or possibly (if he hits enough of them) to anyone. I agree that it would really be nice to have 100% control over things, since unless you do you can't really and truly PROMISE any kind of reliability. P.S: I'm not implying that Ameritech (or any other telco) is incompetent....only that there *IS* an unavoidable danger of service disruption by accident.
In message <3.0.32.19970203105336.006bdcac@mail.cts.com>, "Kent W. England" wri tes:
At 05:28 PM 31-01-97 -0800, Bharat Ranjan wrote:
Check out a product called 'Internet Thruway" that routes a call based on the Called Number. The idea is for telcos to implement this product as a back-end to their access network so calls being made to a Thruway provider never reach the voice network. It is instead sent (via IP and L2F) directly to the ISP's network. SBC is already committed to deploying this in parts of Texas.
It's a partial solution and expensive to implement. The data calls still have to go through at least the first voice switch.
But it would be nice to receive packets rather than switched circuits and avoid the cost of building so many dial POPs, if the price is right.
Of course the current pricing I've seen its significantly more expensive than other solutions. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
participants (4)
-
Brian Tackett -
Jeremy Porter -
Kent W. England -
Tim Brown