[VoiceOps] Geographic redundancy

[Alex Balashov]

Robin Rodriguez wrote:

> On Aug 12, 2009, at 1:37 AM, Kenny Sallee wrote:
> 
>> OK I see - from a CLEC perspective - is it a legal requirement to do 
>> so?  I've read some of this tonight: 
>> http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/How+to+start+a+Clec and although 
>> it's mentioned a bit I'm not clear on if it's a legal requirement of a 
>> CLEC (or just implied because in 1996 that's just the way it was)
>>  
>> ITSP vs CLEC redundancy sounds like it's quite different then - if you 
>> must have SS7 links.  
> 
> No, not sure how you got this idea, you think every mid-sized ISP in the 
> '90s had connections to the service control points? For a CLEC to get a 
> lot of the O/T benefits SS7 interconnection would be desirable, but not 
> required.

That's true.  I was assuming we were talking about telephony here 
strictly.

There are a few uses ISPs have for CLEC licenses that have nothing to do 
with phone.  One is rights-of-way for network build-out, pole 
attachment, etc.  Another is getting UNE rates on leased circuits 
instead of wholesale access rates.  That still required interconnection 
and/or CO colocation for aggregation, but not SS7.

>> Along those lines - I'm reading up on BW and geographical 
>> HA...http://www.broadsoft.com/products/broadworks/platform/#network-geographic  
>> -- anyone out there actually who has actually implemented it - if so 
>> what's your experiences if you can share on list?
>>  
> Sounds like linux-HA style workings to me, but I have no exposure to 
> broadsoft products. 

Yep.  All these devices pretty much work on the same principle, although 
even the Linux-based ones have proprietary failover technologies and 
don't use Linux-HA.

-- 
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web     : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel     : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct  : (+1) (678) 954-0671