dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
14
share rss forum feed

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to jfmezei

Re: CNOC's Part 1 Filing on the 703/704 tariffs

Looks like CNOC screwed themselves hard by calling it "dynamic capacity allocation" instead of requesting aggregated capacity in the form of LAGs... if CBB was applied on a per-LAG basis, you get automatic load-balancing and fail-over without any of the manual interventions the cablecos are complaining about and it still remains impossible for ISPs to use more capacity than whatever the cablecos set the LAG's limit to.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

CNOC filed supplentary comments today. Wish I had time to read it.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

CNOC filed supplentary comments today. Wish I had time to read it.

CNOC is simply asking the CRTC to consider telling incumbents to offer CBB on business GAS with the associated reduction on access charges to account for the removal of capacity components as an alternative to having to split res/biz realms and traffic... basically, go back to when res and biz were the same exept for monthly access fees and install charges.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Bell Canada's commens on the matter

Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5

said by jfmezei:

Bell Canada's commens on the matter

Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure

Too long, didn't read. I suspect they're just re-enforcing that the costs should be higher, can't do that etc.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

said by mlerner:

said by jfmezei:

Bell Canada's commens on the matter

Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure

Too long, didn't read. I suspect they're just re-enforcing that the costs should be higher, can't do that etc.

They are basically saying that realm splitting is easy peasy, been done before and no reason why it can't be done now.

They claim that not splitting the realms allows ISP's to "game the system" around CBB.

In otherwords Bell wants it cake and eat it too.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Primus has weighted in too ...

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

And now, ladies and germs.... It's the MTS Allstream submission...

Converted from some weird format to .pdf for your viewing convenience.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

Bell Canada's commens on the matter

Converted to PDF for yoru viewing pleasure

That's quite some selective snippet of my testimony in para 45, conveniently omitting my response to the question - which was something along the lines of that when that fibre is built there are many redundant strands available at little to no additional cost.

Bell loves to make this claim of not paying for redundancy but the fact is that the capacity cost is a reflection of the whole network, including all the capacity and links that exist. Adding another interface without more capacity only marginally effects the overall cost (ie a port cost) yet they want to collect the capacity charge again without reflecting that the additional revenue of that capacity order without the need to deliver it should drive the per unit cost down.


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com

Especially the redundancy the IISP want is the very last link to Front street and not need the path within Bell's entire cloud duplicated. So really the ASSPI alone cost should cover that.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23
reply to rocca

Rocca, haven't you learned that Bell just wants to get all your money ?

It would be far ore efficient if you gave Mirko access to your bank account and let him manage it for you.



rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to Ott_Cable

said by Ott_Cable :

Especially the redundancy the IISP want is the very last link to Front street and not need the path within Bell's entire cloud duplicated. So really the ASSPI alone cost should cover that.

Exactly.


rocca
Start.ca
Premium
join:2008-11-16
London, ON
kudos:23
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

It would be far ore efficient if you gave Mirko access to your bank account and let him manage it for you.

I sense another Part I coming....

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

said by rocca:

I sense another Part I coming....

Since CNOC promised a second process to focus on rates, everyone senses another part 1 coming

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Vaxination Informatique's submission to the CRTC on that CNOC thing. I am cross eyed, unable to read and in bad need of sleep.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Just a quick note: the next deadline ia February 28th when we get to file our comments on everyone's comments. This is a first at CRTC since normally, only the party who filed the part 1 gets to file comments at the end.



I laffed

@videotron.ca
reply to jfmezei

I liked how you literally drew the CRTC a picture and titled it, "How Things Work".

I chuckled.

+1



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to jfmezei

$49.7 gazillion dollars

Really?


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

1 recommendation

said by elwoodblues:

$49.7 gazillion dollars

Really?

It was either that or $########.##



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia

said by jfmezei:

said by elwoodblues:

$49.7 gazillion dollars

Really?

It was either that or $########.## (Filed in Confidence with the CRTC)


Fixed it.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


Ott_Cable

@teksavvy.com
reply to jfmezei

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazillion

The English language has a number of words for indefinite and fictitious numbers — inexact terms of indefinite size, used for comic effect, for exaggeration, as placeholder names, or when precision is unnecessary or undesirable.

So in other word, it is ############ but without the significant digits.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to jfmezei

You got at least two things wrong about LAGs and LACP...
1) you do not create multiple "LACP groups", you create multiple LAGs (Link Aggregation Groups) and those may optionally be managed by LACP... you can have LAGs without LACP but not the other way around as your particular wording might imply.
2) The maximum number of ports in a LAG is dictated by the least number of ports supported at either end of the LAG, there is no explicit limit. While 8 ports is a common limit on old or small (under 52 ports) switches/routers, many modern systems scalable to 100+ ports support LAGs up to 32 ports.


jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

Based on Wikipedia, the LACP protocol supports up to 8 ports. There may be proprietary ones that support far greater numbers, but I could not advance myself on this.

CNOC nd/or Bell/cable could suggest the use of a proprietary one if they want.


InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5

There is no mention of a port limit on Wikipedia, only an example about the impracticality of bonding more than 8 ports on a 24-ports switch.

In 802.1AX, the only "limit" on LAG sizes when configured using LACP is the 16bits port and priority IDs. Systems could theoretically have LAGs with up to 65535 ports.



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7
reply to jfmezei

said by jfmezei:

....CNOC and/or Bell/cable could suggest the use of a proprietary one if they want.

 
Hey, if it works, then why not sieze the opPORTunity ?

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

2 edits

Click for full size
downloadDOCS_request···cess.pdf 202,688 bytes
Click for full size
downloadDOCS-Bell_-_···7340.pdf 190,892 bytes
Bell Interrogatory for service charges
Click for full size
downloadDOCS-#167639···ries.pdf 199,997 bytes
Interrogatory to Rogers
CRTC issued an interrogatory today on the CNOC Part 1 filing.

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

And an interrogatory for Bell's service charges 7340....

jfmezei
Premium
join:2007-01-03
Pointe-Claire, QC
kudos:23

CNOC asks for extentions to deadlines...

Looks like their lawyer is going to Cuba for the week of the new deadlines.

quote:
1. Canadian Network Operators Consortium Inc. (“CNOC”) is in receipt of six Commission staff letters dated yesterday amending the remaining filing dates for the above-cited proceedings. CNOC is actively participating in all of these proceedings.

2. In five of the letters, Commission staff have posed a number of interrogatories in the above-cited Bell, Cogeco, MTSA, Rogers and Videotron tariff proceedings for which responses are due on 8 March 2012. As a result, interested parties are now required to file any comments by 13 March 2012 in those proceedings.

3. Likewise, Commission staff have posed a number of interrogatories to CNOC and respondents in the CNOC Application proceeding for which responses are due on 8 March 2012. As a result, parties are now required to file replies on all issues by 16 March 2012 in that proceeding.

4. Unfortunately, certain crucial regulatory resources required to prepare comments in the five tariff proceedings and a reply in the CNOC Application proceeding will not be available during the week of 12 through 16 March. As a result, CNOC is respectfully requesting an extension of the 13 March filing date for comments in the tariff proceedings to 21 March (with a corresponding adjustment from March 16 to March 27 for incumbent replies) and an extension of the 16 March filing date for reply in the CNOC Application to 23 March 2012.

5. CNOC is also asking Commission staff to be mindful of the constraint in CNOC’s resources during the week of 12 through 16 March in the event that the Commission finds it necessary to amend the schedule for any other proceeding in which CNOC is currently participating.

Yours very truly,
William Sandiford Chair of the Board and President