Page 1 / 9   >   >>
Packet Man 12/4/2012 | 9:16:35 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama NorwayGÇÖs Lyse Tele Builds Ethernet FTTH with Cisco Metro Network
Lyse Tele, a power utility company that serves 110,000 customers in southwest Norway, is deploying direct fiber connections to residential customers in the Stavanger region of the country using a Cisco Metro Ethernet network. Lyse has connected 500 subscribers in the initial phase of the network rollout and is offering flat rate VoIP packages, video on demand, access to 40 channels of broadcast TV over a single IP-based Ethernet network. The deployment includes Cisco Catalyst 6509 switches in the core, Catalyst 4006 switches in the Ethernet distribution network, the Cisco AS5350 Universal Gateway, and Cisco 3640 Internet routers. Financial terms were not disclosed.
giles0 12/4/2012 | 9:17:26 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama Most SP are bandwidth limited by the edge. Does that mean MPLS is irrelevant for most SP??

Not at all :)

First off MPLS != TE. If carriers want to deploy L2 or L3 VPN services then an MPLS core makes sense. Sure, you can run a non-MPLS technology (UTI/L2TPv3 or virtual routers) or can run MPLS/GRE (to support draft-martini or RFC2547 without an MPLS core) but these solutions typically require more hardware ("tunnel PICs" etc.)

Secondly TE isn't only about bandwidth saving (so contrary to my earlier comment it *may* buy you something even if you have plenty of core bandwidth). For example using pre-signalled secondary paths you can get faster reconvergence than using an IGP.

sgan201 12/4/2012 | 9:17:41 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama Hi BBBoy,
If you bind enough DS0 into a ATM VCC, you may not need echo cancellation with ATM AAL1. Hence, AAL1 is a very low cost option in term of equipment/media gateway of transporting voice.. You waste bandwidth by using AAL1. However, you can get some back by doing DB-CES...

AAL2 save bandwidth but required more equipment/media gate processing power since it usually require echo cancellation and AAL2 SARing/Muxing require more processing power..
broadbandboy 12/4/2012 | 9:17:42 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama dreamer 101 wrote: "Unless the explicit gioal is to make some equipment vendor rich, AAL2 chips is plenty and available. I would think that the jury is still out.."

Who are the leading AAL2 chip suppliers? I know of two, NMS has a group in Canada (used to me InnomediaLogic?) doing one, and also Agere. Any others? Who has the most market share?

I'm not sure that AAL2 is the current VoATM technology of choice. Sure, its standard on wireless, but the big US wireline implementations I have heard about are mainly AAL1, are they not?

I think of AAL2 as providing great trunking efficiency, but AAL1 as better on access lines and easier for switching.


I am also curious about the Telus announcement of so-called VoIP on their LD network. There are no details in the articles cited here, but they are using Passport ATM switches. Could they really be doing VoIP not riding over any ATM layer? I find that hard to believe at this point. If its just trunking, they are incurring extra overhead for what benefit? Maybe some of our Canadian friends can help us out on this one.

By the way, this is one of the best and most educational threads I have every read on LR. Thanks to Dreamer, Packet Man, LGGS, Lucifer, Skeptic, etc. Keep it up!


sgan201 12/4/2012 | 9:17:47 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama Hi LGGS,
Thanks for the clarification...
LightGaugeGuitarString 12/4/2012 | 9:17:47 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama Hi dreamer101,

Actually, a handset is doing VoIP in a Release 5 context doesn't have ATM implemented.

The Uu interface (the air interface) is defined as:


So, for VoIP (bearer) from the UE, we'd see:


ATM doesn't figure in until the UTRAN (the RNS and RNC), where inter-device transport is ATM. So, if you believe what the standards say, the handset wouldn't have a smidgen of ATM implemented.

Now, that doesn't mean that ATM won't be important. Quite the contrary, the UTRAN is ATM-based for transport, once you get to the land-based interfaces. Moreover, there's nothing preventing the service provider from implementing the IP core over an ATM transport layer. Infact, that approach would seem obvious if they're making the ATM investment in the UTRAN.

Just to totally confuse things, there are some vendors who are developing IP-based transport off of the RNC.

sgan201 12/4/2012 | 9:17:49 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama Hi LGGS,
The hand phone may be VoIP over ATM AAL2 after all said and done..
LightGaugeGuitarString 12/4/2012 | 9:17:50 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama "Even when 3G is all IP, the IP packet is chopped into cells via PPPmux in the RAN.. Do you call that an IP packet or not?? If someone is going to chop the IP packet into cells why do it via PPPmux as opposed to ATM cells?? Unless the explicit gioal is to make some equipment vendor rich, AAL2 chips is plenty and available. I would think that the jury is still out.."

Hi Dreamer,

If you re-read my post. I stated that indeed the RAN is ATM-based, and, if you believe what 3GPP Rel 4 and Rel 5 tells you, the RAN will always be ATM-based, which means that, in a RAN context, ATM will be alive and well for a long time.

Looking back at my post, however, I realized I mis-spoke. When I said

"That's not to say that the jury is out and everything in the wireless world will go VoIP. At least one major wireless carrier is going VoAAL2 (what I consider REAL VoATM) in the RAN and core."

I meant to say

"That's not to say that the jury is IN and everything in the wireless world will go VoIP. At least one major wireless carrier is going VoAAL2 (what I consider REAL VoATM) in the RAN and core."

So I agree with you, the jury is still most certainly out.

As to AAL2 chips being available, you're absolutely right. What I had stated, however, was that I believed that IP handsets are more mature from a deployment perspective. In fact, any PC with a 3G wireless modem could do VoIP. These same devices, however, couldn't do VoATM with the same equipment.

Packet Man 12/4/2012 | 9:17:51 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama I think your brain CELLS have been chopped up.

Sorry lad, I had to take the shot.


skeptic 12/4/2012 | 9:17:52 PM
re: No VOIP for Panama In you definition, what is a low speed leased line?? Is it DS1 and lower??
Is it multiple DS1??
MLPPP usually run over multiple DS1 lines..
Is DS3 high speed or low speed leased line??
There is no point arguing about low speed leased without knowing each other definitions.

Given that you are the one making the anti-IP
arguement, its up to you to do your own research.
If you don't know what speed/bandwidth causes
problems, your original arguement has no basis.

And I have no interest in going out and gathering
information for you if you can't even be bothered
to make your own case.

Page 1 / 9   >   >>
Sign In