1 edit |
to HeadSpinning
Re: bell fttn deploymentsaid by HeadSpinning:Actually, there was widespread congestion for quite some time. Bell has made significant progress fixing it recently, but it was persistent for a couple of years around here.
Many of the remotes in this area are/were Lucent AMAS (ZSLAM) and Alcatel ASAM series ATM devices that were seriously congested for quite some time.
Yes, I've already stated problem with old alcatel congestion issue which is still a problem today... but for remotes about higher speed aka fibe 25, this problem is almost non existant. Unless he was talking about the old alcatel network... I mean this topic was about FTTN? |
|
| kovy7 |
to Gone
said by Gone:said by kovy7:Wow... I see your logic now... people complain about anything, and when it's widespread hell they tell all about it. This was not widespread at all. So it's your contention that if the issue isn't so widespread that there are riots in the streets and buildings burning down that the issue isn't "widespread" enough to care about? Get real.  I remember back in 2000 that there was DSL congestion on the link between St. Catharines and Toronto. This was back when it was an 1183/160 profile (if I remember correctly). It was like that for three months before they fixed it. But of course, no one here remembers that it'll be dismissed as not "widespread" enough and people will continue to go on about how DSL is somehow immune to this sort of stuff while cable is plagued by it. Yeah, so much for logic.  Yeah, keep on hyperbol'ing much. Now widespeard means there needs to be a riot... what the, i don't even... Those are old alcatel, are we talking about old CO stuff or the recent remote here? |
|
|
spartan002
Premium Member
join:2008-12-22
Brampton, ON |
was playing a game of battlefield 3 constant lag spikes, clearly brampton node is oversold. soo much congestion. |
|
| |
kovy7
Member
2012-Aug-5 10:23 am
said by spartan002:was playing a game of battlefield 3 constant lag spikes, clearly brampton node is oversold. soo much congestion.
Talking about cable or DSL? |
|
| |
to kovy7
said by kovy7:Yes, I've already stated problem with old alcatel congestion issue which is still a problem today... but for remotes about higher speed aka fibe 25, this problem is almost non existant.
Unless he was talking about the old alcatel network... I mean this topic was about FTTN?
There's still a LOT of users on those "old" networks, and virtually no users on the FTTN network in our area, so from my perspective, it IS widespread. |
|
1 edit |
kovy7
Member
2012-Aug-5 10:40 am
said by HeadSpinning:said by kovy7:Yes, I've already stated problem with old alcatel congestion issue which is still a problem today... but for remotes about higher speed aka fibe 25, this problem is almost non existant.
Unless he was talking about the old alcatel network... I mean this topic was about FTTN?
There's still a LOT of users on those "old" networks, and virtually no users on the FTTN network in our area, so from my perspective, it IS widespread. Read the title of the topic... I clearly taught that's what we were talking about, guess not. |
|
spartan002
Premium Member
join:2008-12-22
Brampton, ON |
to kovy7
cable |
|
| |
to kovy7
Yes, the topic is FTTN DSL, but I was responding to Michael9009 who was talking about DSL in general.
Ignoring the existence of the ATM DSL Network is sorta like only talking about the DOCSIS3 portion of Rogers, and ignoring everything else. |
|
1 edit |
kovy7
Member
2012-Aug-5 7:53 pm
said by HeadSpinning:Yes, the topic is FTTN DSL, but I was responding to Michael9009 who was talking about DSL in general.
Ignoring the existence of the ATM DSL Network is sorta like only talking about the DOCSIS3 portion of Rogers, and ignoring everything else.
Even FTTN are still using ATM DSL Network... But I guess if we talk about old Alcatel equipement (ADSL1) we can see congestion on those remotes. |
|
| |
said by kovy7:Even FTTN are still using ATM DSL Network... But I guess if we talk about old Alcatel equipement (ADSL1) we can see congestion on those remotes.
"FTTN" is using the OE network for aggregation and backhaul. The legacy remote network is using ATM. Bell has been installing ALU 7750 switch routers to convert the ATM uplinks from these DSLAMs at the CO in to OE for backhaul. |
|
| |
kovy7
Member
2012-Aug-6 10:36 am
said by HeadSpinning:said by kovy7:Even FTTN are still using ATM DSL Network... But I guess if we talk about old Alcatel equipement (ADSL1) we can see congestion on those remotes.
"FTTN" is using the OE network for aggregation and backhaul. The legacy remote network is using ATM. Bell has been installing ALU 7750 switch routers to convert the ATM uplinks from these DSLAMs at the CO in to OE for backhaul. Well I won't argue with that, since I've never played with those equipment. I know they recently change the network to something new... but it could be for something else. All I know is FTTN still had the same ATM packets in ADSL and ADSL2+ making around 15% overhead lost. |
|
| |
Yes, ADSL2+ still has ATM encapsulation between the ATU-C (DSLAM) and the ATU-R (Customer Modem), so the overhead still exists. The NETWORK however on FTTN is no longer ATM - it is OE (Optical Ethernet).
So yes, on the actual copper between the DSLAM and the Modem, there is ATM, but that's all.
The overhead loss is limited to that section - once the ATM encapsulation is stripped off at the DSLAM, the over head is no longer an issue - although the overall end user experience is of course affected by the weakest link in the chain.
The difference is, in the old network, the ATM overhead was carried through right to the BAS. |
|
