I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility.
Art,
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Scott,
Thanks for the warning. I am planning on having those dialogues with any potential vendors, as well as ask them for active references.
Art.
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open
access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access
in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.
Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are placed.
A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and
splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their
technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet
install from an open access perspective.
-r
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
> In that case its even harder. Before you even consider doing open
> access talk to your FTTx vendor and find out how many they have done
> using the same architecture you're planning on deploying. Open access
> in an active Ethernet install is actually fairly straight forward but
> on a PON system its harder than a DOCSIS network.Categorically untrue. It is all a matter of where the splitters are
placed.
You're confounding the layers of the network or perhaps I was being unclear
that I was talking about Layer 2 handoffs.
A home run fiber plant architecture with an enormous patch frame and
splitters provided by the open access provider if PON is their
technoogy of choice is indistinguishable from an active ethernet
install from an open access perspective.
Again, I was speaking about Layer 2 open access.
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
approximately as easy as each other.
-r
PS: The word is _conflating_, not _confounding_.
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? I certainly haven't worked on all of
the PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't
have (or I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that
several operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers
on the same OLT.
I am speculating here, Scott, and perhaps Frank, who runs the boxes, will
chime in, but my understanding of the Calix E series is that you can separate
the *traffic* on a per port basis, even on the GPON cards, as to where
that traffic is routed to, presumably by VLAN.
I don't think, on rereading your post, that that's what you actually mean,
though; I think you're asking about something which I myself
got to yesterday afternoon:
Can you separate the *control plan* on an ISP by ISP basis: is it
possible to give ISPs whose clients are on specific ports of an access
mux like an OLT *control over only those ports*, leaving card- and chassis-
global functions for the L2 operator? (Possibly with the optimization
of allowing card-global functions if all the ports on the card are owned
by that operator, or unassigned.)
It's a very good question, and the next nail I was going to hammer.
I'm betting the answer is presently "no; you'll have to put a smart
OAM&P layer in front of it", myself.
Can anyone who's used such Access multiplexers comment on this?
Cheers,
-- jra
Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> writes:
If you were talking about layer 2 handoffs, your statement
is perhaps
even more untrue - active ethernet and PON layer 2 handoffs are
approximately as easy as each other.
Perhaps you'd share some specifics? �I certainly haven't worked on all of the
PON systems that are out there, but the ones I have worked one didn't have (or
I didn't find) a good way to separate traffic at layer 2 so that several
operators could handle their own Layer 3 provisioning for customers on the
same OLT. �
Every PON OLT that I have touched has supported both vlan-per-customer
(has scaling issues) and vlan-per-service configuration abstractions.
There are other ways to do it too (double and triple tagging) but to
keep it simple if one creates profiles along the lines of:
SP1-VOIP
SP1-VIDEO
SP1-INTARWEBZ
and repeats for sp2, sp3, etc... trunk out the top, split off vlans
and backhaul as appropriate (choose wisely!) with appropriate QoS if
you like, to equal access provider.
Provisioning the ONT/ONU and the inter-provider interface to do so
(REST XML? JSON? something else?) is left as an exercise to the
implementer.
Reading this:
https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/gpon/gpon-vlans-and-gem-ports
may prove informative for the GPON case.
-r
Robert,
Thanks for the information, I either missed VLAN per sub set up which does
make PON L2 sharing virtually the same as AE or the version of
hardware/firmware I last worked on didn't support it.
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol) to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's implemented in the Calix devices is remote.
Tom T
From: "Scott Helms" <khelms@zcorum.com>
...
So, that's pushing the control stuff into an API and adding AAA?
Cause I'd be happy with multi-user auth on the CLI, and assigning an 'owner'
to each port...
Cheers,
-- jra