CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco

Joe McLeod jmcleod at musfiber.net
Mon May 5 13:59:40 UTC 2014


It would probably be simplest to allow the operator to run the physical network and provide the CLEC's access to service provisioning on that network.


Thanks,

Joe McLeod
MUS FiberNET   www.musfiber.com 
919 Jarnigan Avenue, Morristown   TN 37815
O: 423-317-6276
jmcleod at musfiber.net

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Clayton Zekelman
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:10 AM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: CLEC and FTTP H.248/Megaco



We currently use MGCP on our ONTs.  The configuration file is downloaded at boot, and contains the IP address of the our switch.

In theory, the IP address could be set in the configuration file to point to a different service provider on a per ONT basis.

Unbundling of FTTH access is still going to be painful.  I would suspect the ILEC would demand that their ONT be used.  This could lead to interop issues.

If I were asking for unbundled FTTH, I'd probably want to run my own OLT, and have my own (or ILEC supplied, but designated) splitter in the ILEC cabinet.  I would then lease feeder fibre from a POI to the splitter cabinet, then fibre subloops to the customer.

The problem becomes that if too many competitors want access to the same cabinet, there is the possibility that there may not be enough room or feeder fibres.



At 08:04 PM 03/05/2014, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
>If the protocol is such that it does not permit co-existance, then a 
>debate on wholesale voice access is moot. If the protocol does permit 
>it, then providing soe form of evidence (either existing 
>implementations or pointer to specs that show this was explicitely 
>designed into the
>architecture) would be of great help.

---

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409        



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




More information about the NANOG mailing list