[VoiceOps] using a T1 to extend PRI service and involuntary fax over sip

[Beth Johnson]

I've got to agree with Lonny.  I spent some time inside one of the Bells,
and they were installing MPLS in their core like crazy...

-B


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Lonny Clark
<lclarkpdx+voiceops at gmail.com<lclarkpdx%2Bvoiceops at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> My company is a CLEC + ISP, and we are using a lot of pseudowire. Any
> customer that wants high-speed IP that is not in range of the CO gets
> pseudowire (about 2 miles). We split some of them into voice/data channels
> using Adtran gear, and MUX others for higher bandwidth.
>
> Customers that are in range of the CO get DSL/bonded DSL/EOC. We require
> one of the latter two options for SIP.
>
> We do our business in mostly rural areas, no fiber except to the city core.
> We have leased fiber connecting our POPs for out IP backbone. We have good
> QoS inside of our network, but not in the outbound long-distance trunks.
> That is the reason we see more errors there, which we don't see inside our
> footprint.
>
> Once upon a time the telecom network was the heart of this company, and
> data services plugged into it. Now the exact opposite is true, the IP
> network is the heart, and the telecom circuits are appendages to that. The
> time-tested/widely-available TDM gear is still used - at the customer's
> premises, but our core network is IP-based.
>
> Lonny Clark
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Paul Timmins <paul at timmins.net> wrote:
>
>> On 01/24/2011 05:08 PM, Lonny Clark wrote:
>>
>>> Most point-to-point T1s that are provisioned are now being backhauled
>>> over IP. This means that the T1 has to be encapsulated in an IP stream, and
>>> the timing for the T1 is also embedded in the stream. Any slips in the
>>> timing may be masked by the backhaul method (you won't see an alarm). It
>>> also means that now you have the possibility of a dropped or out-of-order
>>> packet, which was not possible if the circuit were T1/T3 all the way
>>> through. The possibility of timing issues would also be increased by the
>>> fact that now you are encapsulating twice, once in the point-to-point T1,
>>> and also at the SIP-to-PSTN interface (assuming the PSTN link is TDM). The
>>> fax-to-email service itself has to also demux the data, and then interprets
>>> the result of that as an analog stream using software.
>>>
>>
>> Are you really seeing that much PWE3 pseudowire out there? Every time I've
>> looked it has no benefit over SONET other than more trouble tickets, unless
>> you really, really have decent QoS and almost no need for TDM service in an
>> area you simply can't get SONET to.
>>
>> That being said, on the CLEC side, I have seen no real demand for PWE3
>> psuedowire out there at all. It's just more expensive and problematic than
>> the time tested, more widely available TDM gear.
>>
>> Not saying there isn't a huge demand for IP to the edges, but replacing
>> perfectly good sonet with IP, just to carry less traffic due to IP and PWE3
>> overhead? I'm just not seeing it.
>>
>> -Paul
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20110125/94288aff/attachment.html>