Hi Neil,
Were you able to find out the reason behind there not being an option for CPs
to pay extra to keep the BT/Openreach supplied VDSL modem with the customer
facing Ethernet port as the demarcation point for the service?
Edward Dore
Freethought Internet
Whilst we try to ensure that all of
On 17/09/2015 10:19:46, James Bensley wrote:
A common deployment is that we are using static IPs between CPE and
exchange device, then the customer is running DHCP relay (it's
configured on our CPE LAN interface) back to a central DHCP server
somewhere else in their WAN. We've had some issues wi
On 17/09/15 10:01, James Bensley wrote:
On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill wrote:
On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
switch.
I know if I
On 14 September 2015 at 13:34, Alistair C wrote:
> On 14 September 2015 at 12:43, James Bensley wrote:
>>
>> On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C wrote:
>>
>> > Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay
>> > for
>> > their LAN side, on FTTC?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
> I
On 14 September 2015 at 22:55, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
>> I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
>> smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
>> switch.
>
> I know if I were building it, I'd be avoidi
On 14/09/15 13:32, Robin Williams wrote:
> I'm sure there's a sound technical reason, but again, it disadvantages
> smaller CPs disproportionately who may only have a few customers on each
> switch.
I know if I were building it, I'd be avoiding switch stacking at _any_ cost.
--
Tom
On 14 September 2015 at 12:43, James Bensley wrote:
> On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C wrote:
>
> > Do you currently have any customers utilising centralised DHCP and relay
> for
> > their LAN side, on FTTC?
>
>
> Yes.
>
Interesting, are you using DHCP, PPPoE, Static, or a mixture for
On 14/09/15 12:43, James Bensley wrote:
On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C wrote:
On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley wrote:
I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
it!), they just inte
On 14 September 2015 at 12:08, Alistair C wrote:
> On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley wrote:
>>
>>
>> I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
>> service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
>> it!), they just intercept it an insert the link
On 14 September 2015 at 09:00, James Bensley wrote:
>
> I agree with all that you said except this bit. With the GEA NGA
> service from option reache Option 82 is being passed (we're using
> it!), they just intercept it an insert the link speed as extra values.
>
Do you currently have any custom
On 12 September 2015 at 19:58, Alistair C wrote:
> That and the fact they effectively block DHCP option 82, utilising it for
> sync data as per the SIN, thus needing a workaround for those customers who
> require it. I'd argue this is a fairly typical requirement for a business
> network.
I agr
On 10 September 2015 at 17:39, Paul Astle wrote:
> Openreach have an excellent pedigree in offering tiered SLAs and the
> removal
> of the CPE leads me to question whether Openreach continue to view FTTC as
> a
> business grade option with future enhancements in this area - putting this
> into co
I have asked the same question to my CRM and the OTA with no response so any
light you could shed on it would be great.
Thanks,
Paul Astle
This email was Sent from my iPhone please excuse any grammar and spelling
mistakes.
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 8:29 pm, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> Edward
> It'
Edward
It's a fair challenge I will comeback with a fuller response.
Regards
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:50, Edward Dore
mailto:edward.d...@freethought-internet.co.uk>>
wrote:
Hi Neil,
I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained
elsewhere, but a
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 17:20, Alex Bloor wrote:
>
>> On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> What absolute codswallop.
>
> I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.
Alex
Do i agree we need to do better at managing faults? - absolutely. Do I agree
that we delib
Hi Neil,
I may have missed this, so apologies if it has already been explained
elsewhere, but are you able to shed any light on what the official reason is
for not leaving CPs with the option of paying extra to have a BT/Openreach
supplied VDSL modem with the customer facing Ethernet port as th
Openreach have an excellent pedigree in offering tiered SLAs and the removal
of the CPE leads me to question whether Openreach continue to view FTTC as a
business grade option with future enhancements in this area - putting this
into context would Openreach ever entertain removing the NID for an EA
On 10/09/2015 17:19, Alex Bloor wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>> What absolute codswallop.
> I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.
>
>> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
>> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We
On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> What absolute codswallop.
+1 for maintaining a managed NID option - we are a niche ISP and don't enjoy a
large FTTC estate - We have insufficient scale to test and deploy large no's of
early day buggy FTTC modems - generally the only USP left to smalle
On 10/09/2015 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> What absolute codswallop.
I have to agree with the essence of what Gordon said, I'm afraid Neil.
> "Dodge out of fixing the faults" ?! If there is a problem and it
> needs fixing then we want to fix it. We want customers to be happy, I
> would assert we
On 07/09/2015 15:27, Robin Williams wrote:
> What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the
> withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?
Absolutely terrible idea, from our/my perspective.
At present (with OR supplied modem) we have a fairly clear demarcation
point of
On 10 September 2015 at 14:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
>>
>> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
>> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
>> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visi
terworth
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs
If you have a situation were a fault is not being handled professionally
please feel free to contact me and I will look into it.
Neil
--
--
The Networking People (NorthWest) Limited. Registered office: c/
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:11 AM, David Reader wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>> I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
>> all the way down the stack.
>>
>> has anyone seen this effort yet?
>>
>> https://lite.turris.cz/en/
>
>
> Yes.
>
> The
If you have a situation were a fault is not being handled professionally please
feel free to contact me and I will look into it.
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2015/09/10 13:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord
On 2015/09/10 13:59, Neil J. McRae wrote:
>
> > On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
> >
> > But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
> > principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
> > business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits a
September 2015 14:59
To: Gord Slater
Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk; Tom Hill; Brandon Butterworth
Subject: Re: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
>
> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
On 10 Sep 2015, at 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:
I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
all the way down the stack.
has anyone seen this effort yet?
https://lite.turris.cz/en/
Yes.
The problems, really, are around the closed-ness and un-availability of
the xDSL ch
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
>
> But like Brandon says, that's another issue - it's the end-end+demark
> principle. I see this as BT Group washing their hands of things as a
> business tactic to raise profits on SFI visits and dodge out of fixing
> the faults in their plant. I
On 10/09/2015 14:00, Dave Taht wrote:
https://lite.turris.cz/en/
The UKNOF PC are looking to see if we can get some Open Source
hardware folks to present at a future meeting (that being on the list).
Am guessing from the thread, this is something folks would like to see
?
Chris
I would in general, like to be building better CPE with open drivers
all the way down the stack.
has anyone seen this effort yet?
https://lite.turris.cz/en/
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On 09/09/15 22:37, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> This is a game you can't win, best not
On 10/09/15 13:07, Gord Slater wrote:
> However, I'm reasonably sure that OpenWRT (which has TR069 stuff, see
> UKNOF presentations passim, iirc?) on some recent 128MB+RAM hardware
> will be a good starting point, though care will need to be taken to
> ensure that throughput can cope with future sp
On 9 September 2015 at 22:37, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
>> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,
>
> We could but that's not the main issue. I want BT to be responsbile
> for the service we're paying them
On 10/09/15 00:05, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>> 2. Unifying such a CPE/NTE product could also serve to provide a
>>> unified voice with which to deal with Openreach over faults
> Might be a hard battle, what % of lines aren't the big 5? How many do
> we need to have an effect?
Good point...
>>>
On 10/09/15 00:03, Dave Bell wrote:
> With ADSL a lot of faults got passed back to the CP with a message
> along the lines of "fault not on our network, its on the customers
> network". They would then threaten with a charge (£150?) to send an
> engineer out to go look at the fault. FTTC fixed this
> > This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them
> 1. There /are/ other ISPs playing this game, and finding their own USPs
> to continue doing so - if they were dropping like flies, I would believe
> it was completely worthless to pursue it - just doesn't appear to be the
> case. Cas
On 9 September 2015 at 23:44, Tom Hill wrote:>
> I was thinking more along the lines that you'd be able to convince them,
> over time, that your hardware was a relatively well-known quantity and
> not just any old tat from Ebay.
It doesn't matter if its tat from ebay, or some gold plated shiny bo
On 09/09/15 23:37, Paul Mansfield wrote:
> And if you did this, could you force BT Openreach to accept a change
> of demarc to the ether socket on the modem rather than the phone
> master socket, because you're using equipment they have fully tested
> and approved of?
I was thinking more along the
On 9 September 2015 at 20:59, Tom Hill wrote:
> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,
How many modems do you have to buy off Huawei or ECI to get them to brand them?
And if you did this, could you force BT Openreach to accept a change
of demarc to the ether socket
On 09/09/15 22:37, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> This is a game you can't win, best not play it with them
In principle, I agree on the fact that Openreach are reducing the
service that existed - and was improved upon - when FTTC was first
introduced. I also empathise with anyone that has to deal wi
> I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
> smaller ISPs to get together to design & build their own 'open' CPE,
We could but that's not the main issue. I want BT to be responsbile
for the service we're paying them to deliver (lots, more than they
retail to their own customers).
On 07/09/15 15:27, Robin Williams wrote:
> Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)
Oh, of course not:
http://www.revk.uk/2013/12/wires-only-fttc.html
http://www.revk.uk/2014/10/bt-losing-plot-on-fttc.html
I did just wonder if it's worth the time of a few of the
smaller ISPs to g
>> " Of course, it may just be us that doesn't like it :)"
>
> Robin, I can assure you it isn’t only you. The absolute winner for us is the
> fault ownership as you've already detailed and indeed the fault management
> and recovery process without the passing of the buck which tends to
> dominate
of.org.uk
Subject: [uknof] Openreach withdrawal of FTTC CPEs
What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the
withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?
To me it seems like a backward step, and while the big volume boys may well
want to provide their own quad play CPEs (a
On 7 September 2015 at 15:27, Robin Williams wrote:
> for smaller operators, the Openreach provided CPE had a lot of benefits - it
> was a circuit provided end-to-end by Openreach which included the CPE
> equipment as part of the support.
+1
If I was a gambling man..
* start buying up VSDL mode
What are the thoughts of smaller OR CPs represented here regarding the
withdrawal of Openreach FTTC CPEs as an option?
To me it seems like a backward step, and while the big volume boys may
well want to provide their own quad play CPEs (and avoid having two
boxes etc), for smaller operators, t
46 matches
Mail list logo
