SIP on FTTH systems

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Feb 6 14:42:46 UTC 2014


On Thursday, February 06, 2014 04:17:42 PM Mikael 
Abrahamsson wrote:

> You don't need a BNG. You need an L3 switch as the first
> hop the customer is talking to.

Fine for FTTB, but not for FTTH where you're serving tens-
to-hundreds-of-thousands of customers.

If your FTTH deployments are low scale (measure of low or 
large scale depends on each operator's point of view), the 
case for doing without subscriber management technologies 
can be made.

> If you have L3-in-vlan-per-customer at the first hop then
> you don't really need all of that. If you include
> rudimentary VRF support then you can even support
> wholesale. /64 per customer, DHCPv6(-PD) server support
> in the L3 switch and you're good to go.

I'm curious; in these deployments, what kind of customer 
scale are you talking about? When someone says FTTH, I'm 
thinking thousands and thousands of customers, in which case 
not having a scalable susbcriber management system as well 
as not having a scalable customer termination topology could 
be difficult. Unless I misunderstand...

> There is
> equipment that already claim to do this (I never got to
> test their implementation based on my requirements
> because I switched jobs, but they claimed to have
> implemented everything last year).

Modern Metro-E switches that support full IP/MPLS in the 
Access have a lot of good IPv4 and IPv6 features, including 
DHCP_IA and DHCP_IA_PD, but again, these are more FTTB- than 
FTTH-focused, if you're talking about scale.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140206/a505b423/attachment.bin>


More information about the NANOG mailing list