[VoiceOps] Geographic redundancy

[Alex Balashov]

David Birnbaum wrote:

> I think perhaps we're using "interconnection" differently.

Yeah;  perhaps connection to ILEC tandems should be deemed 
Interconnection with a capital I.  :-)

A lot of ITSPs that don't actually touch the LEC side of things don't 
know this, so, you're absolutely right.  Peering is exchanging traffic 
with another carrier in some sort of bidirectional settlement 
arrangement explicitly for that purpose (analogous to settlement-free IP 
peering, but not necessarily settlement-free as we know - recip. comp. 
and all that), and access is buying origination or termination from 
another carrier.

Access is really what ITSPs as well as CLECs buying inter-LATA LD from 
IXCs do.  If you're a VoIP provider and buy VoIP or TDM trunks from a 
CLEC, you're buying access;  you're not on horizontal footing with them, 
you're not a "peer" - you're a customer.

Peering, I think, should be reserved for CLECs that connect to each 
other for the purpose of passing traffic directly and getting around the 
Bell tandems.

> However, if you want to connect directly to the tandems for the purposes 
> of owning number blocks, registering an LRN, porting numbers natively, 
> etc. there is no way to do that with IP.  

Well, it depends on what is meant by "directly."  One could argue that 
there's nothing "indirect" about taking SIGTRAN from a third party.  You 
still signal ISUP and/or TCAP, just over IP.  The only difference is 
that the physical A-links aren't coming to you and that your point codes 
are physically homed somewhere else.  The switch CLLI and the 
accompanying LRNs and number blocks and so on are still pointing to your 
equipment;  you can port numbers natively, do LNP dips natively, etc. 
It's just that there's a network element in the middle doing some 
protocol conversion.

> If you peer with another carrier who does the IP/TDM interconnection at 
> the tandems on your behalf, you are still beholden to the actual CLEC 
> that owns your numbers.  To me, that's the true difference (which is 
> both technical as well as regulatory) between a CLEC and a 
> facilities-based reseller.

I agree.  There is a whole pile of things you have to do and facilities 
you have to own and operate as a CLEC that you do not have to as an 
ITSP/reseller of an underlying carrier.

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