[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.commailto:steve.hous...@it-ps.com Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.comhttp://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://twitter.com/#!/itpsltd [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] http://www.facebook.com/pages/ITPS/180607505381380 [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top Company No. 3930001 registered in England VAT No. 734 1935 33
Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem
On 30 Oct 2013, at 12:05, Steve Housego steve.hous...@it-ps.com 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
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
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.ukmailto:steve.hous...@itps.co.uk Check out ITPS's website www.it-ps.comhttp://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://twitter.com/#!/itpsltd [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/facebook.gif] http://www.facebook.com/pages/ITPS/180607505381380 [http://itpswebhost01.it-ps.com/customer_images/itps/linkin.gif] http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top Company No. 3930001 registered in England VAT No. 734 1935 33
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
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
CW as1273 Sent from my iPhone On 30 Oct 2013, at 17:30, James Bensley 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.
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT 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 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.
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
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 steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT 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 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 b...@warwicknet.com 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
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 n...@domino.org wrote: On 30/10/2013 16:07, Haroldo F. Jardim 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 b...@warwicknet.com 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, 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 b...@warwicknet.commailto:b...@warwicknet.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 18:24 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org Cc: Haroldo F. Jardim hfjar...@gmail.commailto:hfjar...@gmail.com, steve.hous...@itps.co.ukmailto:steve.hous...@itps.co.uk steve.hous...@itps.co.ukmailto:steve.hous...@itps.co.uk, uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto: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 n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org wrote: On 30/10/2013 16:07, Haroldo F. Jardim hfjar...@gmail.commailto: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 b...@warwicknet.commailto:j...@warwicknet.com WarwickNet - The Business Science Park ISP Tel: 024 7699 7222 Mob: 07973 848007 http://www.warwicknet.comhttp://www.warwicknet.com/
Re: [uknof] BTW FTTC VDSL Modem
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 n...@domino.org 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 b...@warwicknet.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 18:24 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org Cc: Haroldo F. Jardim hfjar...@gmail.com, 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 n...@domino.org wrote: On 30/10/2013 16:07, Haroldo F. Jardim 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 b...@warwicknet.com j...@warwicknet.com *WarwickNet - The Business Science Park ISP* Tel: 024 7699 7222** Mob: 07973 848007** http://www.warwicknet.com ** -- Ben King b...@warwicknet.com 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
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 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 steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT 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 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 b...@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
On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:16, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote: On 30/10/2013 16:07, Haroldo F. Jardim 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. 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] 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
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] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
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 mikie.simp...@gmail.com 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 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 steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT 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 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 b...@warwicknet.com j...@warwicknet.com *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] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
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 mikie.simp...@gmail.commailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 20:38 To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Cc: Stephen Wilcox steve.wil...@ixreach.commailto: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 b...@warwicknet.commailto: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 steve.wil...@ixreach.commailto:steve.wil...@ixreach.com wrote: Well, take a list of Tier1s: ATT 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 jwbens...@gmail.commailto: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 b...@warwicknet.commailto:j...@warwicknet.com WarwickNet - The Business Science Park ISP Tel: 024 7699 7222 Mob: 07973 848007 http://www.warwicknet.comhttp://www.warwicknet.com/
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 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 /derail
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
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 mikie.simp...@gmail.commailto:mikie.simp...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto:n...@domino.org Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.ukmailto:uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.orgmailto: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 /derail
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 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 mikie.simp...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 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 /derail
Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW
Answers inline On 30 Oct 2013, at 22:58, Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org 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 mikie.simp...@gmail.com Date: Wednesday, 30 October 2013 22:00 To: Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org Cc: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] London Proof Tier 1 - Manchester TCW On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 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 /derail
