Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> No idea? How would you test this (any command line to try). The good
>>> thingg with the ping is that often even the DSLAM responds keeping
>>> external sources (i.e. hops further away in the network) of
>>> variability out of the measurement...
>>
>> With various third-party-internet-access ("TPIA" in Canada), the DSLAM
>> is operated by the incumbent (monopoly) telco, and the layer-3 first
>> hop is connected via PPPoE-VLAN or PPP/L2TP.
> So they “own” the copper lines connecting each customer to the DSLAM?
> And everybody else just rents their DSL service and resells them? Do
> they really connect to the DSLAM or to the BRAS?
correct, the copper continues to be regulated; the incumbent was given a
guaranteed 11-14% profit on that service for the past 75 years...
Third parties get an NNI to the incumbent in a data centre.
1) for bridged ethernet DSL service ("HSA" in Bell Canada land), the
each customer shows up to the ISP in a VLAN tag.
2) for PPPoE DSL service, the traffic comes in a specific VLAN, over
IP (RFC1918) via L2TP.
Other parties can put copper in the ground, and in some parts of Canada, this
has occured. Also worth mentioning that
AlbertaGovernmentTelephone/EdmontonTel/BCTel became "TELUS", and then left
the Stentor/Bell-Canada alliance, so Bell can be the third party in the west,
while Telus is the third party in the centre, and Island/Aliant/NBTel/Sasktel
remain government owned... and they actually do different things as a result.
> I think in Germany the incumbent has to either rent out the copper
> lines to competitors (who can put their own lines cards in DSLAMs
> backed by their own back-bone) or rent “bit-stream” access that is the
> incumbent handles the DSL part on both ends and passes the traffic
> either in the next central office or at specific transit points. I
> always assumed competitors renting these services would get much better
> guarantees than end-customers, but it seems in Canada the incumbent has
> more found ways to evade efficient regulation.
This option exists, but the number of CLECs is large, and the move towards
VDSL2 / Fiber-To-The-Neighbourhood (with much shorter copper options!!) means
that this is impractical.
>> my incumbent telco's commercial LAN extension salesperson proudly told
>> me how they never drop packets, even when their links are congested!!!
> I really hope this is the opinion of a sales person and not the
> network operators who really operate the gear in the “field”. On the
> other hand having sufficient buffering in the DSLAM to never having to
> drop a packet sounds quite manly (and a terrible waste of otherwise
> fine DRAM chips) ;)
I think much of the buffer is the legacy Nortel Passport 15K that ties much
of the system together...
>> The Third Party ISP has a large incentive to deploy equipment that
>> supports whatever "bandwidth measurement" service we might cook up.
> As much as I would like to think otherwise, the only way to get a BMS
> in the field is if all national regulators require it by law (well
> maybe if ITU would bake it into the next xDSL standard that the DSLAM
> has to report current line speeds as per SNMP? back to all down stream
> devices asking for it). But I am not holding my breath…
My position is that if there isn't a technical specification, no regulation
could possibly follow...
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
