dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
3
share rss forum feed


HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to smerrikin

Re: Dear Marc...

said by smerrikin:

My dad (2 blocks away) still has not had an issue with his sb5100 and I just convinced him to never switch. What a waste of money.

Well, thats all well and good, until Rogers bans all Docsis 2.0 modems from their network one day, including their own customers.

I've never owned a DCM 475/476, I've been on a Motorola SB6120 for 2 years now with TSI (when they first got them) and never had any DHCP issues, for what it's worth... Lucky i guess.

smerrikin

join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON
Wondering if its just an issue with Thompson modems?
Anyone having dhcp problems with SB modems?


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
said by smerrikin:

Wondering if its just an issue with Thompson modems?
Anyone having dhcp problems with SB modems?

This has no effect on the provisioning process...whether its a Thompson modem or an SB modem or a Webstar or whatever kind of modem.

The issue isn't with the modem, the problem is when the modem syncs up and it gets its own IP, then CPE requests an IP, DHCP server goes "Sorry, for your area...no IPs available from the available pool"....

Again, issue is Rogers never really had to worry...they'd manage their own scopes....issue is TSI can't manage their scopes because they don't have any access to the DHCP server in question, otherwise they would see something to the effect of "Scope is almost full, better allocate some more addresses", vs. Rogers who have huge scopes and do a Ron Popeil and set it and forget it because they have ownership of millions of IPs vs TSI and for the most part Rogers doesn't do much looking at the DHCP server because I'm sure its a beast to manage...

So it sucks...it sucks that TSI doesn't really have access to the equipment to manage the problem because I'm sure they'd see it right away and be proactive and assign or reallocate IPs as neccessary....Unfortunately its the downside of the TPIA agreement....

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

It costs money each time you call in to them....probably eats up their profit for their customer if they call in just once...I believe in 2007 it was $1.39/minute each time a person called in...between paying for the responding person, + technology, + phone, + building expense, heat, water, hydro, bathroom facilities + depreciation, etc...

Hopefully they've looked at it.

smerrikin

join:2011-03-30
Ottawa, ON
Thanks Nitzguy
Very eye opening for me.
On a good note I just came back online. Slow as molasses but still online


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


nitzguy
Premium
join:2002-07-11
Sudbury, ON
said by TSI Marc:

said by nitzguy:

I know TSI has Return on Investment to realize on, but if they realized and just went to the Aggreggated POI, this wouldn't happen at all, because then there would just be 1 scope, vs 1 scope at minimum for each POI and the administrative overhead would go way down....I don't know why they continue to drag their heels on this....because the negative PR and the increased costs in calls to their call centre, weighed vs. going to the Aggregated POI, might show them they'd save some money in the long run....

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.

I was basing it on the CRTC tariffs published for connection to each POI....guestimating I guess because I don't know all the variables, but if you had to connect to each POI individually there would be an inherent cost to that (inital setup cost + ongoing monthly cost to maintain each link) would there not?

....Then if its not true, why drag heels and not just move to aggregated POI so you can serve the whole foot print?

If it is the same setup, you'd think that would have been done a long time ago, no?

I was guessing it was a cost issue since it would make no sense to remain dis-aggregated since you have to move to an aggregated POI eventually anyways.....

Sorry if I was completly wrong on this one...just figured it was a $$$ issue.


ChuckcZar

@teksavvy.com
reply to HiVolt
Being a modem tester i also advised everyone to go with the Motorola SB6120 at the time.

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to nitzguy
said by nitzguy:

....Then if its not true, why drag heels and not just move to aggregated POI so you can serve the whole foot print?

If it is the same setup, you'd think that would have been done a long time ago, no?

I was guessing it was a cost issue since it would make no sense to remain dis-aggregated since you have to move to an aggregated POI eventually anyways.....

It's a dollars issue.
Any ISP on a multi-POI strategy has sunk bundles of money into providing backhaul - money which Rogers will NOT credit toward moving into aggregated POI. So the indie opts to try to return as much as possible on their sunk backhaul costs before moving to aggregated POI. In some (perhaps many) instances, the indie may not breakeven on the individual backhaul circuit costs prior to the CRTC mandated cutover to aggregated POI.


sbrook
Premium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:13
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
·WIND Mobile
reply to TSI Marc
said by TSI Marc:

Nitzguy, I'm not sure where you got that impression from but that's just not true. Aggregated or not, it's the exact same setup.

The difference between non-aggregated and aggregated POI is the router at which the TPIA traffic is routed off Rogers network ... Aggregated eliminates a few routers at the head end for TPIA traffic ... but it moves them to the aggregated POI ... and makes them huge routers instead!

*IF* Rogers had opted to taken the route of 'Unnaming' hiving off the customer and network IPs onto a "holding" company so that way users wouldn't know from the IP that a customer was Rogers or a TPIA customer, from the IP, and administered all the IPs that way, only identifying them internally, then the problems faced in node splits at the head ends would not have happened.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
What you're talking about is dynamic routing. That's the only difference.

they have dynamic routing for themselves... and static for anybody who's not them. Ip's are assigned via DHCP in any case.. but assigning one of ours relies on a static mapping to exist to know how to get to our routers...

on their end, if they pull a card and remap a node to another part of the network, the dynamic routing just picks up on that and knows how to get out.. for us there's an extra step of making sure the statics are all correct.. removing them from where they were.. and adding them where they now are after a network change.
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy


Dones

join:2008-02-14
Toronto, ON
reply to sbrook
So will switching to aggregated stop congestion during peak hours?


creed3020
Premium
join:2006-04-26
Kitchener, ON
kudos:2
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
It very well could depending on the type of congestion as the the aggregated links are purchased 10gbps at a time I believe. This creates a far larger pool of potential connectivity for the traffic to go through.

If you are encountering congestion at the local node level that is dependent on Rogers upgrading those areas, doing a node split, or you using a D3 modem.

Cyborg994

join:2005-04-18
Montreal, QC
reply to sbrook
said by sbrook:

The difference between non-aggregated and aggregated POI is the router at which the TPIA traffic is routed off Rogers network ... Aggregated eliminates a few routers at the head end for TPIA traffic ... but it moves them to the aggregated POI ... and makes them huge routers instead!

You have summarized the tech point well! But from my understanding there is also a huge difference in billing model between aggregated and non-aggregated POI.

My understanding is that Teksavvy is paying a flat monthly fee by fiber in the non-aggregated model, while the fee is by 100 mbit/s increment in capacity in the aggregated model. From the many discussions I have seen on the forum, the non-aggregated model is much more affordable for TSI with the current pricing model, so making the switch is not strictly a tech problem. Also there might be long contracts on those non-aggregated POI fibers, this also drives costs of switching up.


TSI Marc
Premium,VIP
join:2006-06-23
Chatham, ON
kudos:28
reply to Dones
said by Dones:

So will switching to aggregated stop congestion during peak hours?

The short answer is a definite *no*.

Congestion can happen at many levels.. to the degree that we have enough capacity at the POIs and at our data-center.. any congestion you might have would be at a lower level.

If we were aggregated, the same would still be true except that the capacity at the POIs would not be managed by us anymore...

The only benefit I can see is that by not having to manage the capacity at the POIs, we no longer have to worry about single gig links.. and only the big 10gig links at our data-center. That reduces the amount of work we need to do.. all we would need to do is to say we want to use 5gig out of the 10gig link and they would bump up the ceiling.. and that would be that. internally they would worry about the rest...

the flip side to that though is that we would then be measured and billed at their capacity based billing rate approved by the CRTC late last year... today, to flip over (assuming we didn't have all these contracts for the gig links at the POIs that each have multi year commitments to them that we would have to pay to get out of) would be more expensive on day one. In a year from now, it would be a lot more expensive.

Think about that. we're paying full retail rate now for those links. to convert, we would pay more. that means we'd be paying more than full retail rate... and other incumbents are way higher then them still... just goes to show how obscene those rates are.

...so, no. all aggregated is really doing is taking away responsibility from us and putting it on the incumbent to manage that part of the network. oddly enough, the CRTC wants us to take more responsibility.. but that's another story too.

does that answer your question?
--
Marc - CEO/TekSavvy