Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [HSSG] fault signalling

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve) wrote:

> I was just thinking about the reasonableness of your installation
> scenario ...
> If I order analog voice service from Qwest, Qwest sends somebody to my
> house to verify the connectivity to their central office and turn up the
> service.

My Telco won't do that. They will just take for granted that the copper 
pair works.

> If I order cable modem service from Comcast (6 Mbit/s), Comcast sends
> someone to my house to verify connectivity to their network, do
> extensive checks on my cabling at home (how I have my splitters
> configured, making sure that everything except the cable modem jack is
> filtered so that I don't leak anything back into their Cable TV
> distribution network, and that the service works).

My telco won't do that. They will send a description on how to connect the 
modem in the package they will send you, containing splitter, modem and 
cable. It's very unusual that they will send anyone to my home, and if 
they do (because I can't get it working) and it's my fault, they'll charge 
me at least $100 for sending an engineer.

> Is it realistic to think that for a bleeding edge service at over 15,000
> times the bandwidth of any service I have to my house, that this will
> occur by letting the customer install and connect their own equipment
> over an unverified run of dark fiber and I expect to turn up that
> service from one end of the fiber at the service provider POP without
> sending anyone to the customer premises?

I don't understand your analogy. Do you really expect 100GE to be a 
technology used to the customer premesis?

I know how we turn up everything from 1GE to OC768. We expect to connect 
equipment at each end of the dark fiber and check attenuation and RX 
optical levels so they're within parameters, and then we ping a million 
packets and check for CRC errors, if it works error free, we start using 
it for live traffic. Engineer in the field will in the best of cases have 
a optical level meter, most often he does not, he will definately not have 
an OTDR. We then contiously monitor error rates on the interface.

I don't understand your way of doing business, it sounds hugely expensive 
opex-wise, and even then you think that having management in the devices 
is a too costly proposal?

I just don't get it. First management is (too) costly to include in 100GE, 
then as an alterantive the proposal is to spend man-hours using very 
expensive testing equipment to test the connection before it's used to 
turn-up the service? I'd rather spend that money on OAM, my guess is that 
it'll be cheaper in the long run.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: