Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Mike Simpson]

Answers inline

> On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:58, "Neil J. McRae"  wrote:
> 
> Michael,
> Absolute rubbish!

Joy

> 
> How do tesco get food onto shelves?
> 
p sure they have a contingency plan

> How does the NHS exchange information on patients?
> 
Bless. I am so glad that it appears that the NHS exchanges useful info in a 
meaningful manner, makes me very proud to be a part of it. 
> How does the country manage its infrastructure in the widest sense.
> 

It tends to route around bad things and shut down or ignore that which it can't

> Answer-> The Internet’s that we build and operate today.
> 
> Our networks in docklands are Critical national infrastructure. The army 
> won’t be holding us back, they will be assisting us to build the plan to 
> recover.
> 

Yes except it won't be about roping in some people. Your infrastructure will be 
u/s
I thought we learned this from the WTC.

> I don’t agree with your assumption that this wouldn’t be allowed, look at 
> Japan for a reference of it being allowed. Is it desirable, no it isn’t, but 
> sometimes you just have to roll your sleeves up and put on the radiation 
> suits.
> 

Japan was a very different type of event and those weren't volunteers getting 
your networks to stay up so that packets could flow, they were trying to stop 
cores from going critical. 

Answer to this is: If you haven't already been part of the planning "in case" 
so already know ~exactly~ what would happen then you aren't considered to be 
critical. Sorry...

I am sure there are assets there that are deemed to be v important but I also 
am 100% sure that they aren't critical failure points. 

which was the point of this

> Neil.
> 
Best wishes

Mike


> From: Michael Simpson 
> Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00
> To: "Neil J. McRae" 
> Cc: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
> Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>> It would’t remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a 
>> lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty 
>> bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in 
>> the location.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Neil.
> 
> That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed to 
> expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been 
> decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first 
> priority.
> I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to something 
> like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting volunteers won't 
> get through the army cordons.
> 
>  >a lot of volunteer
> 
> heh
> that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to 
> get cancer post event whether it is linked or not.
> Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the reason 
> for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption)
> 
> http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx
> 
> that was based on one ounce of Ce137
> 
> Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some costings 
> on decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not just 
> asbestos grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might be 
> *quite* high.
> 
> If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for 
> entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the 
> facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway.
> 
> I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in your 
> connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time.
> :)
> 
> mike
> 

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Neil J. McRae]

Ben,
I agree that it is, but its not down to the design of the network, its down to 
the macro-economics of the locality of people and at least to start with what 
people are willing to pay for something.

Look at Germany as an example. They actually have a very distributed population 
but have engineered a huge SPOF of national traffic via Frankfurt. If there was 
ever a win on national/regional IX it is Germany, but plugging into multiple 
exchanges when you are a large access provider pushing north of 3Tb/s costs 
serious money.

Neil.

From: Ben King mailto:b...@warwicknet.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 23:09
To: "Neil J. McRae" mailto:n...@domino.org>>
Cc: Michael Simpson mailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com>>, 
"uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

I agree with Neil, a number of buildings in docklands are on top level critical 
infrastructure (though not allowed to advertise it).

However it still feels very much 'all eggs in one basket'.


Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:59, "Neil J. McRae" 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:

Michael,
Absolute rubbish!

How do tesco get food onto shelves?

How does the NHS exchange information on patients?

How does the country manage its infrastructure in the widest sense.

Answer-> The Internet's that we build and operate today.

Our networks in docklands are Critical national infrastructure. The army won't 
be holding us back, they will be assisting us to build the plan to recover.

I don't agree with your assumption that this wouldn't be allowed, look at Japan 
for a reference of it being allowed. Is it desirable, no it isn't, but 
sometimes you just have to roll your sleeves up and put on the radiation suits.

Neil.

From: Michael Simpson mailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00
To: "Neil J. McRae" mailto:n...@domino.org>>
Cc: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW



On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:
It would't remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a lot 
of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty bomb like 
this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in the location.

Regards,
Neil.

That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed to 
expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been 
decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first 
priority.
I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to something 
like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting volunteers won't 
get through the army cordons.

 >a lot of volunteer

heh
that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to get 
cancer post event whether it is linked or not.
Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the reason 
for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption)

http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx

that was based on one ounce of Ce137

Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some costings on 
decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not just asbestos 
grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might be *quite* high.

If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for 
entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the 
facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway.

I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in your 
connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time.
:)

mike

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Ben King]

I agree with Neil, a number of buildings in docklands are on top level
critical infrastructure (though not allowed to advertise it).

However it still feels very much 'all eggs in one basket'.


Sent from my iPhone

On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:59, "Neil J. McRae"  wrote:

 Michael,
Absolute rubbish!

 How do tesco get food onto shelves?

 How does the NHS exchange information on patients?

 How does the country manage its infrastructure in the widest sense.

 Answer-> The Internet’s that we build and operate today.

 Our networks in docklands are Critical national infrastructure. The army
won’t be holding us back, they will be assisting us to build the plan to
recover.

 I don’t agree with your assumption that this wouldn’t be allowed, look at
Japan for a reference of it being allowed. Is it desirable, no it isn’t,
but sometimes you just have to roll your sleeves up and put on the
radiation suits.

 Neil.

  From: Michael Simpson 
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00
To: "Neil J. McRae" 
Cc: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW



On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

>  It would’t remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed
> a lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty
> bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in
> the location.
>
>  Regards,
> Neil.
>

 That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed
to expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been
decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first
priority.
I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to
something like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting
volunteers won't get through the army cordons.

  >a lot of volunteer

 heh
that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to
get cancer post event whether it is linked or not.
Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the
reason for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption)

 http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx

 that was based on one ounce of Ce137

 Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some
costings on decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not
just asbestos grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might
be *quite* high.

 If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for
entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the
facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway.

 I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in
your connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time.
:)

 mike

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Neil J. McRae]

Michael,
Absolute rubbish!

How do tesco get food onto shelves?

How does the NHS exchange information on patients?

How does the country manage its infrastructure in the widest sense.

Answer-> The Internet's that we build and operate today.

Our networks in docklands are Critical national infrastructure. The army won't 
be holding us back, they will be assisting us to build the plan to recover.

I don't agree with your assumption that this wouldn't be allowed, look at Japan 
for a reference of it being allowed. Is it desirable, no it isn't, but 
sometimes you just have to roll your sleeves up and put on the radiation suits.

Neil.

From: Michael Simpson mailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00
To: "Neil J. McRae" mailto:n...@domino.org>>
Cc: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW



On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:
It would't remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a lot 
of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty bomb like 
this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in the location.

Regards,
Neil.

That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed to 
expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been 
decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first 
priority.
I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to something 
like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting volunteers won't 
get through the army cordons.

 >a lot of volunteer

heh
that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to get 
cancer post event whether it is linked or not.
Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the reason 
for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption)

http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx

that was based on one ounce of Ce137

Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some costings on 
decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not just asbestos 
grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might be *quite* high.

If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for 
entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the 
facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway.

I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in your 
connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time.
:)

mike

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Michael Simpson]

On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

>  It would’t remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed
> a lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty
> bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in
> the location.
>
>  Regards,
> Neil.
>

That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed
to expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been
decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first
priority.
I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to
something like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting
volunteers won't get through the army cordons.

 >a lot of volunteer

heh
that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to
get cancer post event whether it is linked or not.
Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the
reason for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption)

http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx

that was based on one ounce of Ce137

Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some
costings on decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not
just asbestos grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might
be *quite* high.

If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for
entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the
facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway.

I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in
your connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time.
:)

mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Pete Beynon]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

> 
> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
> roll out.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Neil.
> 

As Neil suggests, I would tread carefully with mass deployment of your own 
VDSL2 modems based on the potential rollout of vectoring. 

If Openreach goes through the expense and time of deploying vectoring and your 
modem doesn’t support vectoring or isn’t vectoring aware, you are likely to 
very quickly find the modems no longer allowed to sync or at least sync at a 
significantly reduced rate.

A single vectoring alien in a binder can virtually write off any benefit 
delivered by vectoring, so ensure at the very least the modem is vectoring 
aware as well as abiding to the UK ANFP, especially in the case of the 887VA 
where the modem is integrated and not hardware upgradeable.

Regards,

Pete

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Neil J. McRae]

It would't remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed a lot 
of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty bomb like 
this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in the location.

Regards,
Neil.

From: Mike Simpson mailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 20:38
To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Cc: Stephen Wilcox mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency services 
so we were running through "likely" scenarios. The one that sticks in my mind 
as being described as "worryingly feasible" was the caesium based "dirty bomb" 
which would remove access to an area the size of docklands++ for longer than 
the diesel supplies would last.

Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF

On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King 
mailto:b...@warwicknet.com>> wrote:

Hi Stephen,

Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if you 
lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is far from 
the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region specific area, the 
vast majority customers are directly connected to our network (as opposed to 
via another providers active network) and all customers have a route to 
Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of a London fail I am sure they 
would be delighted to be able to continue to send traffic outside of the UK and 
carry on their international business relations (I concede there may be other 
hurdles that get in the way in that scenario).

I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be 
attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK 
diversity.

Regards... Ben






On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox 
mailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com>> wrote:
Well, take a list of Tier1s:
AT&T
Qwest
Savvis
DT
XO
GTT
Verizon
Sprint
Telia
NTT
Level3
Tata
Zayo
Cogent
FT
Seabone


Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:

GTT
Level3
Zayo
Cogent

Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin, Talktalk, 
Sky:

Level3.. maybe?
Cogent.. maybe?
Zayo.. maybe?


Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and 
network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.

Steve







On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley 
mailto:jwbens...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Continuing this thread;

Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
/ West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
than all of London?

Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.

Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
more specifically what I'm after.

Cheers,
James.





--

Ben King mailto:j...@warwicknet.com>>

WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP

Tel: 024 7699 7222

Mob: 07973 848007

http://www.warwicknet.com

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Stephen Wilcox]

I just hope the emergency services aren't buying Verizon IP out of Slough
and hoping to be able to connect their systems to much of the UK users if
docklands++ disappears!

:)

Steve


On 30 October 2013 20:38, Mike Simpson  wrote:

> A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency
> services so we were running through "likely" scenarios. The one that sticks
> in my mind as being described as "worryingly feasible" was the caesium
> based "dirty bomb" which would remove access to an area the size of
> docklands++ for longer than the diesel supplies would last.
>
> Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF
>
> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King  wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if
> you lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is
> far from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region
> specific area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our
> network (as opposed to via another providers active network) and all
> customers have a route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of
> a London fail I am sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to
> send traffic outside of the UK and carry on their international business
> relations (I concede there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that
> scenario).
>
> I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be
> attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK
> diversity.
>
> Regards... Ben
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox  wrote:
>
>> Well, take a list of Tier1s:
>> AT&T
>> Qwest
>> Savvis
>> DT
>> XO
>> GTT
>> Verizon
>> Sprint
>> Telia
>> NTT
>> Level3
>> Tata
>> Zayo
>> Cogent
>> FT
>> Seabone
>>
>>
>> Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:
>>
>> GTT
>> Level3
>> Zayo
>> Cogent
>>
>> Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin,
>> Talktalk, Sky:
>>
>> Level3.. maybe?
>> Cogent.. maybe?
>>  Zayo.. maybe?
>>
>>
>> Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity
>> and network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley  wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing this thread;
>>>
>>> Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
>>> proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
>>> / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
>>> recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
>>> than all of London?
>>>
>>> Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
>>> question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
>>> else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
>>> go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
>>> conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
>>> then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
>>> else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
>>> scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.
>>>
>>> Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
>>> more specifically what I'm after.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> James.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Ben King >
>
> *WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP*
>
> Tel: 024 7699 7222**
>
> Mob: 07973 848007**
>
> http://www.warwicknet.com
>
> **
>
>
>


-- 
Director / Founder
IX Reach Ltd
E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com
M: +44 7966 048633
Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Peter Knapp]

Same applies to the annex M versions. 

New fw needs bootloading onto adsl module at startup. We have loads of 877Ms 
like this and they work fine. 


Peter Knapp
 
Director

C.C.S. (Leeds) Ltd
Unit A
Seacroft Trade Park
Coal Road
Leeds
LS14 2AQ
 
T: 0113 294 66 99
F: 0113 273 00 58
E: peter.kn...@ccsleeds.co.uk
W: www.ccsleeds.co.uk


-Original Message-
From: Mike Jenkins 
Sender: 
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:54:38 
To: Mike Simpson
Cc: Haroldo F. Jardim; 
uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Neil J. 
McRae; steve.hous...@itps.co.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem



>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> 
>>> I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>>> controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
>> 
>> Haroldo,
>> 
>> 
>> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
>> 
>> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
>> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
>> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
>> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
>> CPE/DSLAMS.
>> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
>> roll out.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Neil.
> 
> The issue was in the 870s with a wierd interaction between the Alcatel modem 
> chipset "STMI" and the Huawei MSAN "IFTN"
> 
> Cisco moved to Broadcom chipsets for their newer kit which have proven to be 
> *much* better both in the 800 series and in the HWIC
> 
The 870 issue was solved ages ago. Cisco released updated firmware for the 
Alcatel chipset and it works fine. We still have loads of these deployed and 
behaving very well. They've got a poor reputation as a result of this but they 
don't really deserve it.

Mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Mike Jenkins]

> 
> On 30/10/13 16:24, Steve Housego wrote:
>> Thanks Haroldo,
>> 
>> We knew it was possible to do this based on our earlier research and your 
>> config is pretty much what we envisaged, however my question was really 
>> aimed how to do it officialy so we maintain support from BT Wholesale.
> 
> 
> I was going to say something similar.  I can just see the look of confusion 
> on the face of the Openreach engineer when he turns up and the standard OR 
> VDSL CPE isn't connected.  Whether it's a genuine product or not, it'll 
> confuse them if it's not the standard.  Some OR engineers are only just 
> getting used to MPFs!  I'd definitely vote for keeping it standard wherever 
> possible to save hassle when it goes wrong.
> 
> Robin

Fixing faults is definitely easier with an on-site Ethernet demarcation point. 
No arguing over filters, extension wiring, faulty routers, etc. BT accept 
faults readily, and just fix them. I don't think wires only would be a great 
step forward for wholesale DSL. Sadly, I suspect the bigger ISP's will not see 
it that way, and wires only will become the norm...

Mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Mike Jenkins]

>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> 
>>> I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>>> controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
>> 
>> Haroldo,
>> 
>> 
>> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
>> 
>> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
>> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
>> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
>> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
>> CPE/DSLAMS.
>> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
>> roll out.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Neil.
> 
> The issue was in the 870s with a wierd interaction between the Alcatel modem 
> chipset "STMI" and the Huawei MSAN "IFTN"
> 
> Cisco moved to Broadcom chipsets for their newer kit which have proven to be 
> *much* better both in the 800 series and in the HWIC
> 
The 870 issue was solved ages ago. Cisco released updated firmware for the 
Alcatel chipset and it works fine. We still have loads of these deployed and 
behaving very well. They've got a poor reputation as a result of this but they 
don't really deserve it.

Mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Mike Simpson]

> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:16, "Neil J. McRae"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30/10/2013 16:07, "Haroldo F. Jardim"  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>> controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
> 
> Haroldo,
> 
> 
> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
> 
> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
> CPE/DSLAMS.
> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
> roll out.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Neil.
> 
> 

The issue was in the 870s with a wierd interaction between the Alcatel modem 
chipset "STMI" and the Huawei MSAN "IFTN"

Cisco moved to Broadcom chipsets for their newer kit which have proven to be 
*much* better both in the 800 series and in the HWIC

Mike

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Mike Simpson]

A few years ago I had to do major incident planning for the emergency services 
so we were running through "likely" scenarios. The one that sticks in my mind 
as being described as "worryingly feasible" was the caesium based "dirty bomb" 
which would remove access to an area the size of docklands++ for longer than 
the diesel supplies would last. 

Seems reasonable to avoid a geophysical SPOF

> On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:00, Ben King  wrote:
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if you 
> lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is far 
> from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region specific 
> area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our network (as 
> opposed to via another providers active network) and all customers have a 
> route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of a London fail I am 
> sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to send traffic outside 
> of the UK and carry on their international business relations (I concede 
> there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that scenario).
> 
> I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be 
> attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK 
> diversity.
> 
> Regards... Ben
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>> On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox  wrote:
>> Well, take a list of Tier1s:
>> AT&T
>> Qwest
>> Savvis
>> DT
>> XO
>> GTT
>> Verizon
>> Sprint
>> Telia
>> NTT
>> Level3
>> Tata
>> Zayo
>> Cogent
>> FT
>> Seabone
>> 
>> 
>> Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:
>> 
>> GTT
>> Level3
>> Zayo
>> Cogent
>> 
>> Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin, 
>> Talktalk, Sky:
>> 
>> Level3.. maybe?
>> Cogent.. maybe?
>> Zayo.. maybe?
>> 
>> 
>> Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and 
>> network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley  wrote:
>>> Continuing this thread;
>>> 
>>> Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
>>> proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
>>> / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
>>> recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
>>> than all of London?
>>> 
>>> Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
>>> question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
>>> else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
>>> go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
>>> conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
>>> then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
>>> else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
>>> scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.
>>> 
>>> Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
>>> more specifically what I'm after.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> James.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ben King 
> WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP
> Tel: 024 7699 7222
> Mob: 07973 848007
> http://www.warwicknet.com
>  
> 

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Robin Williams]

On 30/10/13 16:24, Steve Housego wrote:

Thanks Haroldo,

We knew it was possible to do this based on our earlier research and your 
config is pretty much what we envisaged, however my question was really aimed 
how to do it officialy so we maintain support from BT Wholesale.



I was going to say something similar.  I can just see the look of 
confusion on the face of the Openreach engineer when he turns up and the 
standard OR VDSL CPE isn't connected.  Whether it's a genuine product or 
not, it'll confuse them if it's not the standard.  Some OR engineers are 
only just getting used to MPFs!  I'd definitely vote for keeping it 
standard wherever possible to save hassle when it goes wrong.


Robin

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Ben King]

Hi Neil,

One vendor the same, the other has moved chipset Vendors in the CPE within
the last year (for the better).

Happy to discuss next time I see you, we are also about to kick off a
vectoring trial with one of vendors - be interested to compare notes on
that as well!

Regards... Ben


On 30 October 2013 18:27, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

>  Ben,
> Thanks it mirrors much of my own experience–  in your scenario - are the
> same vendors using different chipsets in the DSLAM versus CPE?
>
>  Neil.
>
>   From: Ben King 
> Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 18:24
> To: "Neil J. McRae" 
> Cc: "Haroldo F. Jardim" , "steve.hous...@itps.co.uk" <
> steve.hous...@itps.co.uk>, "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" <
> uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>
>
> Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem
>
>   Hi Neil,
>
>  I can say that we have found the 887VA very good in terms of VDSL2
> compliance across different chipsets (we are split vendor on our SLU
> deployments - trying to ditch the original as fast as we can).
>
>  I can also say that VDSL2 performance varies wildly depending on chipset
> and how you mix manufacturers. I have great examples of where you get
> better sync rates mixing vendor DSLAMs and CPEs as opposed to same vendor
> at both ends of the link.
>
>  Regards... Ben
>
>
> On 30 October 2013 18:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 30/10/2013 16:07, "Haroldo F. Jardim"  wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Steve,
>> >
>> >I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>> >controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
>>
>>  Haroldo,
>>
>>
>> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
>>
>> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
>> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
>> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
>> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
>> CPE/DSLAMS.
>> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
>> roll out.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Neil.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>
>  Ben King >
>
> *WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP*
>
> Tel: 024 7699 7222**
>
> Mob: 07973 848007**
>
> http://www.warwicknet.com
>
> **
>
>
>


-- 

Ben King >

*WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP*

Tel: 024 7699 7222**

Mob: 07973 848007**

http://www.warwicknet.com

**

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Neil J. McRae]

Ben,
Thanks it mirrors much of my own experience-  in your scenario - are the same 
vendors using different chipsets in the DSLAM versus CPE?

Neil.

From: Ben King mailto:b...@warwicknet.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 18:24
To: "Neil J. McRae" mailto:n...@domino.org>>
Cc: "Haroldo F. Jardim" mailto:hfjar...@gmail.com>>, 
"steve.hous...@itps.co.uk" 
mailto:steve.hous...@itps.co.uk>>, 
"uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

Hi Neil,

I can say that we have found the 887VA very good in terms of VDSL2 compliance 
across different chipsets (we are split vendor on our SLU deployments - trying 
to ditch the original as fast as we can).

I can also say that VDSL2 performance varies wildly depending on chipset and 
how you mix manufacturers. I have great examples of where you get better sync 
rates mixing vendor DSLAMs and CPEs as opposed to same vendor at both ends of 
the link.

Regards... Ben


On 30 October 2013 18:16, Neil J. McRae 
mailto:n...@domino.org>> wrote:


On 30/10/2013 16:07, "Haroldo F. Jardim" 
mailto:hfjar...@gmail.com>> wrote:

>Hi Steve,
>
>I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>controller for a couple of years now without any problems.

Haroldo,


Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?

One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
CPE/DSLAMS.
Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
roll out.


Regards,
Neil.





--

Ben King mailto:j...@warwicknet.com>>

WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP

Tel: 024 7699 7222

Mob: 07973 848007

http://www.warwicknet.com

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Ben King]

Hi Neil,

I can say that we have found the 887VA very good in terms of VDSL2
compliance across different chipsets (we are split vendor on our SLU
deployments - trying to ditch the original as fast as we can).

I can also say that VDSL2 performance varies wildly depending on chipset
and how you mix manufacturers. I have great examples of where you get
better sync rates mixing vendor DSLAMs and CPEs as opposed to same vendor
at both ends of the link.

Regards... Ben


On 30 October 2013 18:16, Neil J. McRae  wrote:

>
>
> On 30/10/2013 16:07, "Haroldo F. Jardim"  wrote:
>
> >Hi Steve,
> >
> >I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
> >controller for a couple of years now without any problems.
>
> Haroldo,
>
>
> Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?
>
> One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
> free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
> and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
> ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
> CPE/DSLAMS.
> Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
> roll out.
>
>
> Regards,
> Neil.
>
>
>


-- 

Ben King >

*WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP*

Tel: 024 7699 7222**

Mob: 07973 848007**

http://www.warwicknet.com

**

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Neil J. McRae]

On 30/10/2013 16:07, "Haroldo F. Jardim"  wrote:

>Hi Steve,
>
>I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
>controller for a couple of years now without any problems.

Haroldo,


Do you see any noticeable difference in sync performance?

One of the concerns raised by some of my colleagues about doing a wires
free service is the requirements in compatibility between chipset vendors,
and personally speaking in the past (with Cisco 8xx specifically) on
ADSL2/2+ was pretty challenging with different chipsets in different
CPE/DSLAMS.
Also need to ensure future chipset compliance with a potential vectoring
roll out.


Regards,
Neil.

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Ben King]

Hi Stephen,

Coming back to you on your original point, you make a valid point that if
you lose London you lose most of the UK, from my perspective though UK is
far from the whole game, we only supply businesses in a pretty region
specific area, the vast majority customers are directly connected to our
network (as opposed to via another providers active network) and all
customers have a route to Manchester that avoids London, so in the event of
a London fail I am sure they would be delighted to be able to continue to
send traffic outside of the UK and carry on their international business
relations (I concede there may be other hurdles that get in the way in that
scenario).

I think you actually highlight is that ideally more providers should be
attempting to be present in both London and Manchester to give greater UK
diversity.

Regards... Ben






On 30 October 2013 17:41, Stephen Wilcox  wrote:

> Well, take a list of Tier1s:
> AT&T
> Qwest
> Savvis
> DT
> XO
> GTT
> Verizon
> Sprint
> Telia
> NTT
> Level3
> Tata
> Zayo
> Cogent
> FT
> Seabone
>
>
> Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:
>
> GTT
> Level3
> Zayo
> Cogent
>
> Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin,
> Talktalk, Sky:
>
> Level3.. maybe?
> Cogent.. maybe?
> Zayo.. maybe?
>
>
> Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and
> network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley  wrote:
>
>> Continuing this thread;
>>
>> Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
>> proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
>> / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
>> recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
>> than all of London?
>>
>> Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
>> question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
>> else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
>> go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
>> conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
>> then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
>> else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
>> scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.
>>
>> Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
>> more specifically what I'm after.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>>
>>
>


-- 

Ben King >

*WarwickNet - The Business & Science Park ISP*

Tel: 024 7699 7222**

Mob: 07973 848007**

http://www.warwicknet.com

**

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Stephen Wilcox]

Well, take a list of Tier1s:
AT&T
Qwest
Savvis
DT
XO
GTT
Verizon
Sprint
Telia
NTT
Level3
Tata
Zayo
Cogent
FT
Seabone


Remove any that only have BGP PoPs in docklands or no UK POP, this leaves:

GTT
Level3
Zayo
Cogent

Remove any that dont interconnect outside docklands with BT, Virgin,
Talktalk, Sky:

Level3.. maybe?
Cogent.. maybe?
Zayo.. maybe?


Why not pick someone not in the tier1 list with better UK connectivity and
network (that was my prior point) this gives you a wide choice.

Steve







On 30 October 2013 17:28, James Bensley  wrote:

> Continuing this thread;
>
> Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
> proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
> / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
> recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
> than all of London?
>
> Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
> question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
> else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
> go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
> conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
> then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
> else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
> scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.
>
> Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
> more specifically what I'm after.
>
> Cheers,
> James.
>
>

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[Neil J. McRae]

C&W as1273

Sent from my iPhone

> On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:30, "James Bensley"  wrote:
> 
> Continuing this thread;
> 
> Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
> proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
> / West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
> recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
> than all of London?
> 
> Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
> question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
> else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
> go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
> conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
> then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
> else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
> scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.
> 
> Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
> more specifically what I'm after.
> 
> Cheers,
> James.
> 

Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW

[James Bensley]

Continuing this thread;

Can anyone recommend a good Tier 1 provider that is at least docklands
proof (by which I mean Global Switch 1 / 2  & Smelehouse East / North
/ West)? Everyone and their mum is in that little cluster, can anyone
recommend a Tier 1 that is proven to not depend on those sites rather
than all of London?

Whilst I don't think this is quite such a big ask as the original
question I'd like to find a provider who can provide me routes from
else where, be it Manchester or else where in London etc, *that don't
go via docklands already*. A couple of providers I have had
conversation with have said that traffic would go via docklands but
then if docklands explosededed, it would then go via Manchester or via
else where instead, but then they would then be running a fail over
scenario; links could be congested, latency increases etc etc.

Any providers who will be not be routing via docklands as default is
more specifically what I'm after.

Cheers,
James.

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Haroldo F. Jardim]

Hi Steve,

I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL 
controller for a couple of years now without any problems.


The configuration itself is straight forward. I remember reading that 
SIN a while ago and all we need to know/do really is to make sure frames 
are tagged with VLAN 101. IOS uses interface Ethernet0 for VDSL. So if 
you just create a subinterface and set the encap to be dot1q 101 should 
be all you need to ditch the Openreach modem altogether. Here's an example:


interface Ethernet0
 no ip address
!
interface Ethernet0.101
 description TO ISP
 encapsulation dot1Q 101
 ip address dhcp

In my particular case my ISP uses DHCP, but of course if you're using 
PPP you can adjust the configuration accordingly. I did just that with a 
couple of clients and it worked fine.


Couple of considerations I'd keep in mind:

0) I've shut down at0 as I believe the use the same physical interface. 
Just in case you have some obsolete/unused configuration in there.


2) Get the latest firmware for the controller from Cisco website and add 
it to your config- ie:


controller VDSL 0
 firmware filename flash:VA_A_38k1_B_38h_24g1.bin

3) 'show controller vdsl 0' will give a lot of information: firmware 
version, synch status, connection stats and etc.


4) If you experience connectivity issues from your hosts/clients, you 
might want to look adjusting the TCP MSS accordingly- ie: ip tcp 
adjust-mss 1452 should account for your IP, TCP and PPP headers if 
that's what you need.


I hope it helps.

Haroldo

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Steve Housego]

Thanks Haroldo,

We knew it was possible to do this based on our earlier research and your 
config is pretty much what we envisaged, however my question was really aimed 
how to do it officialy so we maintain support from BT Wholesale.  As a provider 
with 100's of managed circuits we need that support in the event of a fault as 
we wouldnt want them to reply with 'put the Openreach modem back to carry out 
testing'.

If you see my reply to Will and Mike I'm told there will soon be the option to 
provide a self install which will allow us to go down this route, but untill 
then were happy using the vlan based method on the 887.

Thanks
SteveH




From: Haroldo F. Jardim
Sent: 30 October 2013 16:07
To: Steve Housego; uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

Hi Steve,

I actually have an 887VA-W myself and have been using the built in VDSL
controller for a couple of years now without any problems.

The configuration itself is straight forward. I remember reading that
SIN a while ago and all we need to know/do really is to make sure frames
are tagged with VLAN 101. IOS uses interface Ethernet0 for VDSL. So if
you just create a subinterface and set the encap to be dot1q 101 should
be all you need to ditch the Openreach modem altogether. Here's an example:

interface Ethernet0
  no ip address
!
interface Ethernet0.101
  description TO ISP
  encapsulation dot1Q 101
  ip address dhcp

In my particular case my ISP uses DHCP, but of course if you're using
PPP you can adjust the configuration accordingly. I did just that with a
couple of clients and it worked fine.

Couple of considerations I'd keep in mind:

0) I've shut down at0 as I believe the use the same physical interface.
Just in case you have some obsolete/unused configuration in there.

2) Get the latest firmware for the controller from Cisco website and add
it to your config- ie:

controller VDSL 0
  firmware filename flash:VA_A_38k1_B_38h_24g1.bin

3) 'show controller vdsl 0' will give a lot of information: firmware
version, synch status, connection stats and etc.

4) If you experience connectivity issues from your hosts/clients, you
might want to look adjusting the TCP MSS accordingly- ie: ip tcp
adjust-mss 1452 should account for your IP, TCP and PPP headers if
that's what you need.

I hope it helps.

Haroldo





[http://www.it-ps.com/emailimages/itpsmail_r2_c1.gif]

"Helping Your ICT Budget Deliver to its Maximum Potential"

Steve Housego
Principal Consultant

IT Professional Services
Axwell House
Waterside Drive
Metrocentre East Business Park
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear NE11 9HU

T. 0191 442 8300
D. 01914428300
M.
F. 0191 442 8301

steve.hous...@itps.co.uk

Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.com
Keep up to date with all the latest Technology News

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/twitter.gif]
   [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] 

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] 


Company No. 3930001 registered in England
VAT No. 734 1935 33

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Steve Housego]

Mike/Will, Many thanks for this, we hadn't even thought about that as an 
option, I've already found an example config that looks like this is a winner 
for the client.

FYI we have just (about 5 minutes after reading the responses here) had more 
information from BTW (after a week of 'i dont know's) who advised the trial 
Michael Eaton and SIN498 is refering to is ending, and there will be a self 
install option (i.e minus the modem) available to all CP's in the coming months.

Many thanks to all for the advice.

SteveH



From: Mike Jenkins
Sent: 30 October 2013 10:37
To: Will Hargrave; Steve Housego
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: RE: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

> > Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a
> Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of
> Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
> to go
> FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.
>
> Actually, you should be able to use one of the 4 onboard 10/100 ports to do 
> PPPoE
> with the Openreach-provided VDSL gateway, since the 887 supports vlans. Worth
> a test, and i imagine a much lower risk.
>

+1, works a treat.
Also support baby giants, so you can use 1500 MTU in the pppoe.

Mike


[http://www.it-ps.com/emailimages/itpsmail_r2_c1.gif]

"Helping Your ICT Budget Deliver to its Maximum Potential"

Steve Housego
Principal Consultant

IT Professional Services
Axwell House
Waterside Drive
Metrocentre East Business Park
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear NE11 9HU

T. 0191 442 8300
D. 01914428300
M.
F. 0191 442 8301

steve.hous...@itps.co.uk

Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.com
Keep up to date with all the latest Technology News

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/twitter.gif]
   [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] 

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] 


Company No. 3930001 registered in England
VAT No. 734 1935 33

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Eaton, Michael (FCS - ICT)]

Steve,

You may find the info on the openreach "bring your own" VDSL modem trial
useful here
http://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/updates/briefings/super-fastfibreac
cessbriefings/super-fastfibreaccessbriefingsarticles/nga01613.do  and
previous postings in this area may give you a feel for what is happening
at that layer.

Regards,
Michael

-Original Message-
From: uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk
[mailto:uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk] On Behalf Of Mike Jenkins
Sent: 30 October 2013 10:38
To: Will Hargrave; Steve Housego
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk
Subject: Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

> > Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router 
> > (eg. a
> Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large 
> estate of Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely 
> need to be replaced to go FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN
port.
> 
> Actually, you should be able to use one of the 4 onboard 10/100 ports 
> to do PPPoE with the Openreach-provided VDSL gateway, since the 887 
> supports vlans. Worth a test, and i imagine a much lower risk.
> 

+1, works a treat.
Also support baby giants, so you can use 1500 MTU in the pppoe.

Mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Mike Jenkins]

> > Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a
> Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of
> Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
> to go
> FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.
> 
> Actually, you should be able to use one of the 4 onboard 10/100 ports to do 
> PPPoE
> with the Openreach-provided VDSL gateway, since the 887 supports vlans. Worth
> a test, and i imagine a much lower risk.
> 

+1, works a treat.
Also support baby giants, so you can use 1500 MTU in the pppoe.

Mike

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Will Hargrave]

On 30 Oct 2013, at 12:05, Steve Housego  wrote:

> Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a 
> Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of 
> Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
> to go FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.

Actually, you should be able to use one of the 4 onboard 10/100 ports to do 
PPPoE with the Openreach-provided VDSL gateway, since the 887 supports vlans. 
Worth a test, and i imagine a much lower risk.

-- 
Will Hargrave
+44 114 303 

Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Neil J. McRae]

Steve,
You'll need to approach BTW directly. OR release a product or capability its 
then up to the downstream CP's to offer that option/service - the only 
organisation that can tell you that is BTW themselves.

You may find it cheaper the keep the Openreach modems and use a router that 
just has Ethernet - worth considering.

Regards,
Neil.

From: Steve Housego mailto:steve.hous...@it-ps.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 10:05
To: "uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk" 
mailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk>>
Subject: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

Hi All

I'm currently assisting a client who is a BT Wholesale customer who are just 
completing a migration to 21CN and once complete will be looking at deploying 
FTTC to some sites in the near future. A question has arose around FTTC which 
BTW cant seem to give us a definitive answer, and thought this list would be an 
ideal place to ask.

Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a 
Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of 
Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
to go FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.

Referencing SIN498 (http://www.sinet.bt.com/498v5p1.pdf) page 18, 2.4 
"Openreach intend to introduce a GEA-FTTC product variant that allows the CP to 
provide and be responsible for the user's VDSL 2 modem"

This seems to indicate Openreach will be allowing this at some point in the 
future, but i have no idea how this fits with BT Wholesale, nor timescales.

Whilst it seems technicly possible to do this as various blogs have pointed 
out, as a business they need to have the full support from BT Wholesale. They'd 
be more than happy to take part in trials as the cost of replacing the 887's is 
a bit of barrier to the fttc deployment. If anyone has any contacts in BTW who 
can help we'd be incredibly greatfull :)

Thanks

SteveH


[http://www.it-ps.com/emailimages/itpsmail_r2_c1.gif]

"Helping Your ICT Budget Deliver to its Maximum Potential"

Steve Housego
Principal Consultant

IT Professional Services
Axwell House
Waterside Drive
Metrocentre East Business Park
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear NE11 9HU

T. 0191 442 8300
D. 01914428300
M.
F. 0191 442 8301

steve.hous...@it-ps.com

Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.com
Keep up to date with all the latest Technology News

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/twitter.gif]
   [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] 

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] 


Company No. 3930001 registered in England
VAT No. 734 1935 33

[uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem

[Steve Housego]

Hi All

I'm currently assisting a client who is a BT Wholesale customer who are just 
completing a migration to 21CN and once complete will be looking at deploying 
FTTC to some sites in the near future. A question has arose around FTTC which 
BTW cant seem to give us a definitive answer, and thought this list would be an 
ideal place to ask.

Does anyone have any experiance of using your own VDSL modem/router (eg. a 
Cisco 887VA) and ditching the openreach modem? They have a large estate of 
Cisco 887VA routers and they've realised they will likely need to be replaced 
to go FTTC due to the lack of an ethernet WAN port.

Referencing SIN498 (http://www.sinet.bt.com/498v5p1.pdf) page 18, 2.4 
"Openreach intend to introduce a GEA-FTTC product variant that allows the CP to 
provide and be responsible for the user's VDSL 2 modem"

This seems to indicate Openreach will be allowing this at some point in the 
future, but i have no idea how this fits with BT Wholesale, nor timescales.

Whilst it seems technicly possible to do this as various blogs have pointed 
out, as a business they need to have the full support from BT Wholesale. They'd 
be more than happy to take part in trials as the cost of replacing the 887's is 
a bit of barrier to the fttc deployment. If anyone has any contacts in BTW who 
can help we'd be incredibly greatfull :)

Thanks

SteveH


[http://www.it-ps.com/emailimages/itpsmail_r2_c1.gif]

"Helping Your ICT Budget Deliver to its Maximum Potential"

Steve Housego
Principal Consultant

IT Professional Services
Axwell House
Waterside Drive
Metrocentre East Business Park
Gateshead
Tyne & Wear NE11 9HU

T. 0191 442 8300
D. 01914428300
M.
F. 0191 442 8301

steve.hous...@it-ps.com

Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.com
Keep up to date with all the latest Technology News

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/twitter.gif]
   [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] 

[http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] 


Company No. 3930001 registered in England
VAT No. 734 1935 33