CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco
carlos at race.com
Sat May 3 19:51:06 UTC 2014
+1 here we do the same exact thing with our ftth and ont¹s separate vlan
with h.248 gw¹s sitting on it and you just point the profile of the voice
port to the gw. There is a reason why they are doing things this way, as
current regulation does not force them to give you access to there fiber
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / carlos at race.com / http://www.race.com
On 5/3/14, 6:48 AM, "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk at iname.com> wrote:
>We use H.248 in our CLEC area. The voice service for that ONT runs on a
>specified VLAN for that ONT, so if we had to share our infrastructure with
>other CLECs we could do that.
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois
>Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 10:50 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco
>I need a sanity check.
>An incumbent in Canada has revealed that its voice service on FTTP
>deployments is based on H.248 MEGACO (Media Gateway Controller).
>Are there any examples of CLEC access to such FTTP deployments ?
>(for instance, an area where the copper was removed, leaving only fibre
>to homes, do CLECs retain competitive access via fibre to homes, or is
>it going out of business or going with pure SIP/VoIP over the regular
>internet connection, instead of using the "quality" voice link in the
>GPON with garanteed bandwidth ?
>Can this protocol support the programming of one OLT/MG connecting to
>the Telco's MGC, while the OLT/MG next door connects to the CLEC's MGC ?
>Or does the protocol result in MG's "discovering" the nearest MGC and
>connecting to it (making it hard to have multiple MGCs from competing
>I have been lead to believe that most OLTs came with a SIP based ATA. It
>appears that H.248 is more telco friendly and scales better. Does this
>mean that H.248 is more widely deployed in FTTH ?
More information about the NANOG