NBP part II

recyclebin

Why would you close this thread? NBP hasn't even begun in earnest. Only the contract has been signed.

fergus1001

user1842 wrote: »

If the trolls on this thread have pushed Navi to close his account, then indeed it is a very sad state of affairs.

I cannot understand why this thread is not actively moderated.

In fact it should be closed now, the contract is signed, the NBP process is over. It's implementation time, and thus time for a new thread.

New thread for monitoring progress started here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=112314858#post112314858

heavydawson

Comreg approval of Eirs urban rollout:
https://www.comreg.ie/publication/comreg-approval-of-eircom-development-crd-551-1
It appears they're using XGS-PON for this:

ComReg understands that the focus of this extension to Eircom’s FTTH
platform will be larger towns and urban centres. In the initial phase of the
FTTH rollout Eircom will, for the first time, deploy technology known as
XGS-PON(3). As a technology, XGS-PON has the capability to allow for
download or upload speeds of greater than 1 Gb/s. The footprint of this
further rollout of FTTH is referred to by Eircom as Ireland’s Fibre Network
(‘IFN’).
(3)This will be the first deployment of 10-Gigabit-capable symmetric passive optical network (‘XGS-PON’)
in Eircom’s access network, Eircom’s existing 300k footprint is served by technology known as GPON.

KOR101

user1842 wrote: »

I cannot understand why this thread is not actively moderated.

It's because the people who have sufficient tech knowledge to do the job, don't want to do it. The problems are too great.

Marlow

heavydawson wrote: »

Comreg approval of Eirs urban rollout:
https://www.comreg.ie/publication/comreg-approval-of-eircom-development-crd-551-1
It appears they're using XGS-PON for this:

They are. They are also using a different split. 64 premises per cluster opposed to 32.

/M

heavydawson

Marlow wrote: »

They are. They are also using a different split. 64 premises per cluster opposed to 32.

/M

Who was using the 32 split? NBI or Eir (in their previous rollout)?

Johnboy1951

heavydawson wrote: »

Who was using the 32 split? NBI or Eir (in their previous rollout)?

Openeir rural roll out used 32 split

babi-hrse

The ifn urban rollout begins end of the month a new all in one device looks to be launched for this. Looks like a small router that gets fibre optic plugged direct to it. Andy gets his wish.
It's only being trialled and we'll see how it goes.

Johnboy1951

babi-hrse wrote: »

The ifn urban rollout begins end of the month a new all in one device looks to be launched for this. Looks like a small router that gets fibre optic plugged direct to it. Andy gets his wish.
It's only being trialled and we'll see how it goes.

Andy will be pleased

Any idea what model is being trialed?

babi-hrse

It's small it's white it has 4 Lan ports and no external antennae if any huwai like everything else essentially it looks like a white netopia router without rabbit ears

oscarBravo

It's not a router - at least not for IFN purposes. It has a bunch of ports, but the only ones enabled are the PON port (the fibre) and one gigabit port (for connecting the actual router). It's a fancy ONT, but it's still an ONT.

plodder

babi-hrse wrote: »

The ifn urban rollout begins end of the month a new all in one device looks to be launched for this. Looks like a small router that gets fibre optic plugged direct to it. Andy gets his wish.
It's only being trialled and we'll see how it goes.

I still don't understand why we need two separate powered devices. In Spain, the ONT and router are combined in one box.

listermint

plodder wrote: »

I still don't understand why we need two separate powered devices. In Spain, the ONT and router are combined in one box.

Maybe not everyone wants the stock router... It's actually a worse system to combine them imo

The Cush

Huawei HN8250Ts XGS-PON bridging type ONT

ED E

Seems overkill? Is 1G gonna be a limitation for any single sub? Retail ISP will be proving own CPE with ATA etc.

plodder

listermint wrote: »

Maybe not everyone wants the stock router... It's actually a worse system to combine them imo

Maybe then if you want two separate boxes you should be able to have that, but if you want only one then that should be an option too.

oscarBravo

ED E wrote: »

Seems overkill? Is 1G gonna be a limitation for any single sub? Retail ISP will be proving own CPE with ATA etc.

It's future-proofing. For the moment it's just going to be used to provide the existing RAPs, but new products will be introduced in the future (subject to the regulatory process) and the same ONTs will do up to 10Gb/s.

plodder wrote: »

Maybe then if you want two separate boxes you should be able to have that, but if you want only one then that should be an option too.

There's a proposal for a regulatory change to allow a combined box. It's not there yet.

Marlow

heavydawson wrote: »

Who was using the 32 split? NBI or Eir (in their previous rollout)?

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Openeir rural roll out used 32 split

Both OpenEIR for the 300k and SIRO also.

/M

tuxy

plodder wrote: »

Maybe then if you want two separate boxes you should be able to have that, but if you want only one then that should be an option too.

If the current resident of the house decided they wanted the combo ont-router if/when it's introduced.

Do you think the process will be easy for a new resident to decide they want an ONT on its own to use their router of choice. Or would they be stuck with a combo router that may have poor performance?

It just sounds kind of messy.

plodder

tuxy wrote: »

If the current resident of the house decided they wanted the combo ont-router if/when it's introduced.

Do you think the process will be easy for a new resident to decide they want an ONT on its own to use their router of choice. Or would they be stuck with a combo router that may have poor performance?

It just sounds kind of messy.

Eventually, it will end up the way it is with DSL. The modem will be built into the router. I could see routers being sold that support multiple PON standards as well as DSL and nobody will want a separate ONT, just like nobody wants a separate DSL modem.

tuxy

plodder wrote: »

Eventually, it will end up the way it is with DSL. The modem will be built into the router. I could see routers being sold that support multiple PON standards as well as DSL and nobody will want a separate ONT, just like nobody wants a separate DSL modem.

But if the DSL modem was separate, wall mounted and about the same size as a phone socket that they need anyway most would be happy. The current ONT is only a little larger than this.

I'm not saying it won't end up with combo units. It's just the telco's will decide what they want and it won't be consumer driven.

plodder

tuxy wrote: »

But if the DSL modem was separate, wall mounted and about the same size as a phone socket that they need anyway most would be happy. The current ONT is only a little larger than this.

It still needs a separate power supply. It looks clunky and unnecessarily complicated (to the consumer).

I'm not saying it won't end up with combo units. It's just the telco's will decide what they want and it won't be consumer driven.

I think it will be consumer driven, particularly in urban areas where there is a choice. It reminds me a bit of when dial up modems first appeared. They had to be approved by Telecom Eireann (or whatever they were at the time) because there was this big deal about connecting things to the phone network. Eventually, there was an explosion of cheap unapproved products available, and whatever concerns there were, just disappeared.

Marlow

plodder wrote: »

Eventually, it will end up the way it is with DSL. The modem will be built into the router. I could see routers being sold that support multiple PON standards as well as DSL and nobody will want a separate ONT, just like nobody wants a separate DSL modem.

It is unlikely, that the FTTH providers ever will allow anything else bar their own ONTs on the FTTH access network.

And unlike DSL, any device on the FTTH network has to be whitelisted in the OLT, before it even can talk to the OLT.

There is also another factor to take into consideration: with VDSL, if your modem/router was causing issues, it would only affect your line. End of story.

With FTTH, if you introduce a "rogue element", you can take up to 32 (rural 300k/SIRO) or 64 (IFN) subscribers down in the process. And that's why it's not going to happen.

/M

plodder

Marlow wrote: »

It is unlikely, that the FTTH providers ever will allow anything else bar their own ONTs on the FTTH access network.

I'd imagine that the FTTH providers will have control over the ONT function on a combined box, but I don't see why they have to provide the hardware in all cases.

And unlike DSL, any device on the FTTH network has to be whitelisted in the OLT, before it even can talk to the OLT.

There is also another factor to take into consideration: with VDSL, if your modem/router was causing issues, it would only affect your line. End of story.

With FTTH, if you introduce a "rogue element", you can take up to 32 (rural 300k/SIRO) or 64 (IFN) subscribers down in the process. And that's why it's not going to happen.

/M

Below is an image of one of the routers that Movistar provides. The optical patch cable goes straight into the router.

heavydawson

Marlow wrote: »

It is unlikely, that the FTTH providers ever will allow anything else bar their own ONTs on the FTTH access network.

And unlike DSL, any device on the FTTH network has to be whitelisted in the OLT, before it even can talk to the OLT.

There is also another factor to take into consideration: with VDSL, if your modem/router was causing issues, it would only affect your line. End of story.

With FTTH, if you introduce a "rogue element", you can take up to 32 (rural 300k/SIRO) or 64 (IFN) subscribers down in the process. And that's why it's not going to happen.

/M

Marlow, can you elaborate on the rogue element? Wouldn't the XGS-PON specifications prevent that sort of thing. In other words, if someone _were_ to replace their device with an off-the-shelf device, I doubt the device would make it to market unless it (largely) complied with the spec. Are you suggesting a bad actor deliberately wreaking havoc on the network? And wouldn't that involve manipulation of the hardware at a _very_ low level if using commodity OTN chips ? The risk of that seems extremely low
Your point of course about it being a shared medium vs wire-per-customer is valid, but I do wonder how easy it is to take down a bunch of subscribers with that method

plodder

I guess fibre is new here. So they are being naturally cautious about that kind of risk. They have a lot more experience with it in Spain. So, it seems natural to look there for future trends.

Though is (coax) cable not also a shared medium to some extent? And given that it's electrical rather than optical, I imagine the theoretical risks are greater...

Marlow

heavydawson wrote: »

Marlow, can you elaborate on the rogue element? Wouldn't the XGS-PON specifications prevent that sort of thing. In other words, if someone _were_ to replace their device with an off-the-shelf device, I doubt the device would make it to market unless it (largely) complied with the spec. Are you suggesting a bad actor deliberately wreaking havoc on the network? And wouldn't that involve manipulation of the hardware at a _very_ low level if using commodity OTN chips ? The risk of that seems extremely low
Your point of course about it being a shared medium vs wire-per-customer is valid, but I do wonder how easy it is to take down a bunch of subscribers with that method

Interoperatibility on FTTH is still a problem. Hell, even just getting some equipment to talk to each other using standard SFP/SFP+ modules can be a pain.

I have for example a business FTTH connection on SIRO. And no matter what SFPs were used, the link between SIROs Huawei NTU and my router would not come up. Once we changed to the copper port, everything was fine. So Huawei is not precisely following the standards here.

So with that in mind, for network stability and for support, it will never happen.

The demark of the VDSL network is the master socket in your house. OpenEIRs responsibility stops there.

The demark on the FTTH network is the ONT. And that is owned and managed by OpenEIR. They have been talking about a wires only product on FTTH, but it's not defined yet. And you can be assured, that it will be extremely limited, what is allowed to be used and a lot of testing required by the provider to prove, that their gear is compatible.

We certaily will never see the case of the consumer being able to buy a piece of equipment of the shelf and just replacing their NTU. By doing so, you interfere with OpenEIRs property and network.

/M

plodder

Interoperability is always a problem in the early stages of standards. The kinks do get ironed out over time though.

Speculation here, but I think in the medium term the way it might work is that retail ISPs will supply a combined box. They will contact Openeir etc and provide some kind of ONT id, and Openeir will give them a unique password or key for that ID. So, in that sense the ONT is under the control of Openeir. They can shut it down at any time. Because of the shared medium aspect, some kind of transaction like that will always be needed.

Long term, maybe that transaction could be done by the consumer rather than the retail ISP. Who knows? Personally, I wouldn't ever rule out anything in the long term.

Marlow

plodder wrote: »

Long term, maybe that transaction could be done by the consumer rather than the retail ISP. Who knows? Personally, I wouldn't ever rule out anything in the long term.

OpenEIR has no interest dealing directly with the consumer and your contract as a consumer will always be with the retail ISP, so they have no contractual obligation to you.

Also .. how many providers do you know, that actively let you choose your own router and even will give you support to get said router going ? With that attitude in place by providers already ... what do you think that will mean to consumer choice on ONTs ?

Unless there is legislation and enforcement put in place, like in Germany, where providers were forced to give consumers free choice on ADSL/VDSL and cable modem routers, it's not going to happen. So in Ireland ...... nope.

/M

heavydawson

How will that work practically for NBI? Will they provide the ONTs to each reseller that wants to use their network? So the ONT is NBI, but the router/wifi will be Virgin/Eir/Sky/Whoever....?