x
Optical/IP

Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge

Sometimes smaller is better. At least, that's what a handful of big U.S. carriers say they want in a next-generation broadband remote access server (B-RAS).

BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS), Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE: VZ), SBC Communications Inc. (NYSE: SBC), and Bell Canada (NYSE/Toronto: BCE) have been hard at work over the past year developing a new DSL Forum specification called Working Text 81, or WT-081. This document, set to be ratified at the DSL Forum's September meeting in Boston, calls for a smaller, less expensive device that can be deployed close to the access portion of a carrier network.

"What's been developed here is a new architectural model," says Bernard Dugerdil, vice chairman of the DSL Forum's WT-081 technical committee. "The key element is the B-RAS, which sits as close to the DSLAM as possible."

The push for a new network architecture has many vendors scrambling to reposition existing products to fill a new architectural void. But some experts say vendors of traditional B-RAS products shouldn't go too crazy retrofitting their gear, as carriers may find that pushing the B-RAS out this far in the network could create some unforeseen challenges.

"The movement to smaller and cheaper devices closer to the DSLAM is a knee-jerk reaction, not a no-brainer," says Graham Beniston, principal of Beniston Broadband Consulting. "It's really trading one set of issues for another."

Historically, B-RASs have been big boxes that sit deep in carrier networks collecting traffic from multiple DSLAMs (DSL access multiplexers) at the points where DSL connections fan out to customers. They terminate point-to-point protocol (PPP) sessions and sometimes also incorporate edge router functions, enabling them to shunt traffic on and off the carrier's IP backbone. They maintain quality of service (QOS), enforce class of service (COS), provision services, and provide a central collection point for data that can be used to bill customers for their network and service usage.

Vendors offering this type of equipment include Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), CoSine Communications Inc. (Nasdaq: COSN), Juniper Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: JNPR), Laurel Networks Inc., and Redback Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: RBAK).

As noted, WT-081 envisions these big boxes being superceded by a greater number of smaller, smarter ones, sitting next to DSLAMs or, in some cases, integrated with them. The goal is to help carriers cut infrastructure costs when distributing content such as streaming video, gaming, and multicast applications.

“It’s less expensive for us to deliver these value-added services closer to the customer,” says Bart Hawkins, general manager of new technology introduction at SBC. “The transport cost for moving packets of high bandwidth applications around can be expensive.”

“We can’t put the content directly onto every customer site,” Hawkins adds. “But we also can’t afford to have customer requests traveling back and forth over the whole network every time they want an application. We need to find a happy medium where content is pushed out to the edge.”

Incumbents aren't the only carriers interested in this architecture. Smaller, independent carriers are also interested in seeing more intelligent B-RAS functionality closer to the edge of the network.

“We’re looking to roll out a video-over-copper service,” says Hans Nilsson, president and CEO of Bruce Municipal Telephone System (BMTS), a rural local exchange carrier in Canada. “Taking the content closer to the edge makes running the network less expensive.”

BMTS just signed a contract to replace its DSL gear from Advanced Fibre Communications Inc. (AFC) (Nasdaq: AFCI) with a B-RAS product from Copper Mountain Networks Inc. (Nasdaq: CMTN) (see Copper Mountain Enhances B-RAS).

Vendors are catching on to what the carriers want, and some have developed products that can satisfy these new requirements. Cisco, Juniper and Redback all have smaller boxes, in addition to their large ones, that could be used for this application (see Cisco Pads B-RAS Offering, Juniper Enhances Its Edge and Redback Sharpens SmartEdge).

Copper Mountain and Network Equipment Technologies Inc. (net.com) (NYSE: NWK) also contend that their products get the specifications right. Copper Mountain claims it’s the only vendor to exclusively design a product for these functions (see Copper Mountain Aims for Compliance). And Net.com claims it’s the only one that has native ATM switching. (The specification doesn’t specifically require native ATM switching, but ATM interfaces are required to handle incoming ATM traffic as well as some ATM uplinks.)

Alcatel SA (NYSE: ALA; Paris: CGEP:PA), the DSL market leader, also has a WT-081 development in the pipeline. It's working with Corona Networks Inc. to develop a B-RAS module that will fit inside its recently announced monster DSLAM, the 7301 (see Alcatel Unveils 'Better' DSLAM and Corona Gets a Boost).

But some experts, like Beniston, say that carriers will have to grapple with a different set of issues with this new architecture. Not only will this physically add more devices to the network that need to be managed, but it will also increase the complexity of service management, says Beniston. What's more, pushing content out to several edge devices could create security risks.

"This really shifts the cost and problems associated with dealing with an ATM network to problems of managing a whole host of distributed B-RASs," he says. "The B-RAS is a key element where individual traffic streams come into the network and lose their individuality as they're routed across large thick pipes. Even on a small scale, these are sophisticated systems."

Beniston will be moderating a Webinar for Light Reading on this topic in September. This follows two other Webinars he's moderated on related topics: Next-Gen B-RAS: The Money Makers and Next-Gen DSLAMs.

For a full list of B-RAS vendors check out Light Reading’s Who Makes What: Equipment 2003.

— Marguerite Reardon, Senior Editor, Light Reading

GreenBall 12/4/2012 | 11:38:43 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge I think Lucent has B-RAS support based on Ascend code in Stinger DSLAM.
man 12/4/2012 | 11:37:47 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge
Hi, in discussion with different operators it seems that they must move the BRAS closer to the edge with more and distributed BRAS. They do not want this but must do that for capacity reasons when introducing video. The problem that arises when the BRAS is pushed to the edge is that there is no easy way to ensure QoS above the BRAS which leads to that they need to overprovissioning BW above the BRAS to ensure QoS. So it seems that neither the old or the new solution solves the problem!?

/M
Graham Beniston 12/4/2012 | 11:37:46 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge I think the IP B-RAS uplink QoS issue has been solved with techniques like DiffServ, Hierarchical queueing, and MPLS traffic engineered paths. That also appears to be the view of the DSL Forum, expressed in their "Working Text 81" document "Architecture Requirements for the Support of QoS-enabled IP Services".

As for bandwidth for video services, that is mainly a cost driver which does suggest pushing the B-RAS closer to the DSLAM. For Video on Demand Services, it's a trade-off between DSLAM uplink bandwidth cost, and the cost to deploy many more Video Content servers in CO locations. There are also the non-trivial issues of management of the distributed B-RAS and video servers, and the video content security when it is stored in many more places.

For broadcast video services, it's a straight fight between transport costs over ATM or Gigabit Ethernet. Although there still side issues like IP multicast strategy and IP routing strategy if you now have one IP router per CO site.
Graham Beniston 12/4/2012 | 11:37:46 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge You are right - The Lucent Stinger DSLAM does have B-RAS capability. You'll be able to comapre this with other DSLAMs in my Light Reading web report coming out very shortly.
Dredgie 12/4/2012 | 11:37:35 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge It would appear that WT-080/081 mandate that the BRAS element resides outside of (but close to) the DSALM. This is critical as the model, as defined in these working texts, should be applicable to all access technologies GÇô not just DSL. This initiative has already been tied closely to that of FSAN, but it is also applicable access technologies such as Ethernet and fixed wireless that may be used in parallel with DSL but use different GÇ˙head-endGÇÖ devices.

From a practical perspective / to expand Grahams argument it would think it would be even more difficult to manage BRAS platforms distributed out to / inside the individual DSLAM. Plus, as Bart suggests the BRAS is the content-injection point, managing that content to a highly distributed edge element (the DSLAM) would again be cumbersome.
dhanks 12/4/2012 | 11:33:13 PM
re: Carriers Want a Little B-RAS on the Edge Hi Graham,

As an introduction, my name is Dale Hanks and I work in the Stinger Development Group at Lucent.

I see from the message below that you are writing an article comparing DSLAMS.

We have just recently released a new version of software - 9.5. This release has many new features, some of which include enhanced B-RAS capabilities on our IP2000 (PPPoA/PPPoE termination, OSPF, PIM-SM v2, multiple vrouters, just to name a few).

Do you have documentation and information on this release? Do you have a contact at Lucent providing you updated information?

Please let me know if you need anything at all and feel free to give me a call anytime @ (510) 747-5817.

Thanks, Dale
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE