gmane.org.operators.uknof

OOB Swap in Telehouse North TFM17

Charlie Boisseau — 2013-06-18T08:27:21

Hi all,

We're seriously struggling to get BT to cooperate putting in our OOB ADSL line into our rack in TH North (TFM17 A01) - we're now on the third failed visit!  As you probably know running Cat5 in TH North is difficult and expensive unless the route is pretty short.  Is there anyone else who happens to be in TFM17 or the very near vicinity who would be willing to do an OOB swap?

FYI: TFM17 is on the fourth floor at the far right end of the corridor when you come out of the lift.

Thanks,

Charlie

--
Charlie Boisseau

Fluency Communications Ltd.
e. charlie-ulRinJO4idgrt0uItJCqpA< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:charlie-ulRinJO4idgrt0uItJCqpA< at >public.gmane.org>
w. http://fluency.net.uk/
t. 0845 874 7000

Fluency Communications Ltd. is part of the Commsworld<http://www.commsworld.com/> Group.

This Email and files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended for the sole use of the individual or organisation addressed. If you have received this Email in error please notify the sender immediately and dele

Re: CWDM kit...

Neil J. McRae — 2013-06-16T20:18:10

Suspect that will be a tad more pricey than cdwm :D

From: Tom Storey <tom-oF/JpDaL0sZeoWH0uzbU5w< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:tom-oF/JpDaL0sZeoWH0uzbU5w< at >public.gmane.org>>
Date: Sunday, 16 June 2013 21:16
To: "Neil J. McRae" <neil-cruCHar3Nocdnm+yROfE0A< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:neil-cruCHar3Nocdnm+yROfE0A< at >public.gmane.org>>
Cc: Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi <dariush-JaihotjHAEm9FHfhHBbuYA< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:dariush< at >gravitas.co.uk>>, "uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org>" <uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] CWDM kit...

Yeah, 100G coherent.

They also have a 4x25 variant.

http://www.btisystems.com/products/bti-7800-series.aspx#tabs-2

On 16 June 2013 01:18, Neil J. McRae <neil-cruCHar3Nocdnm+yROfE0A< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:neil-cruCHar3NodQFI55V6+gNQ< at >public.gmane.orgg>> wrote:
Assume the latter is a coherent system rather tha

Re: CWDM kit...

Tom Storey — 2013-06-16T20:16:46

Yeah, 100G coherent.

They also have a 4x25 variant.

http://www.btisystems.com/products/bti-7800-series.aspx#tabs-2


On 16 June 2013 01:18, Neil J. McRae <neil-cruCHar3Nocdnm+yROfE0A< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Neil J. McRae — 2013-06-16T00:18:00

Assume the latter is a coherent system rather than coarse?

Neil.

From: Tom Storey <tom-oF/JpDaL0sZeoWH0uzbU5w< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:tom-oF/JpDaL0sZeoWH0uzbU5w< at >public.gmane.org>>
Date: Sunday, 16 June 2013 00:16
To: Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi <dariush-JaihotjHAEm9FHfhHBbuYA< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:dariush< at >gravitas.co.uk>>
Cc: "uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org>" <uknof< at >lists.uknof.org.uk<mailto:uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org>>
Subject: Re: [uknof] CWDM kit...

Ive worked on a lot of BTI gear and have no complaints.

http://btisystems.com/

Their latest system is meant to be capable of 96 x 100G channels.

On 14 June 2013 09:53, Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi <dariush-JaihotjHAEm9FHfhHBbuYA< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:dariush-JaihotjHAEm9FHfhHBbuYA< at >public.gmane.org>> wrote:
So I count that as three +1's for ghip.

I'm curious, what makes them stand out from the crowd ?
Are they just bog standard at the right

Re: 3rd party optics for Juniper MX5-80

Tom Storey — 2013-06-15T23:22:17

I have used JDSU across a selection of platforms, namely MX, T and EX.


On 11 June 2013 08:18, Gavin Henry <ghenry-bHEzfJykRyIqdlJmJB21zg< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Tom Storey — 2013-06-15T23:16:47

Ive worked on a lot of BTI gear and have no complaints.

http://btisystems.com/

Their latest system is meant to be capable of 96 x 100G channels.


On 14 June 2013 09:53, Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi <dariush-JaihotjHAEm9FHfhHBbuYA< at >public.gmane.org>wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Dariush Marsh-Mossadeghi — 2013-06-14T08:53:59

So I count that as three +1's for ghip.

I'm curious, what makes them stand out from the crowd ?
Are they just bog standard at the right price ?
or is something specific ? ...specification, build quality, customer Service, price ?

Slightly off-topic etymological question that seems like the sort of trivia that the list might have an opinion on
A mate of mine said to me that the term 'bog standard' was short for 'British or German standard', an engineering term dating back to times when the label was some mark of quality. This contradicts the google-verse opinions but seems more plausible than some of the proffered explanations. Anyone here come across this ?

Dariush


On 14 Jun 2013, at 05:22, Mark Prior <mrp-UHrl6fL3LvY< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Mark Prior — 2013-06-14T04:22:01

+1 for ghipsystems

Mark.

Re: CWDM kit...

Arnold Nipper — 2013-06-14T00:40:06


+1 for each


Arnold

CWDM kit...

David Whitaker — 2013-06-13T09:14:17

Hi David
Please also consider ADVA, we have excellent capabilities for Metro WDM of all types.  Get in touch if you are inclined please and I would be please to help.

Cheers
David Whitaker
ADVA Optical Networking SE
T:  +44 (0) 1582 883 083
M: +44 (0) 7785 365 660


On 12/06/13 13:36, Sheryn, David wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Brandon Butterworth — 2013-06-13T16:21:54

ghipsystems.com and cubeoptics.com are our favourites

brandon

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK (fwd)

Edward J. Dore — 2013-06-13T15:24:15

At least some of it went to Gamma Telecom I believe.

Edward Dore 
Freethought Internet 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jethro R Binks" <jethro.binks-3oVnsloLHoGFxr2TtlUqVg< at >public.gmane.org>
To: uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org
Sent: Thursday, 13 June, 2013 4:08:17 PM
Subject: Re: [uknof] Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK (fwd)

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:

routing follows? What happens if the business that originally provided the transferred number closes its network or stops operations? Does that break the new provider's service for the number?

Veering slightly, but since you mentioned Atlantic Telecom ... does anyone 
know who acquired responsibility for their ducts?  Particularly the one 
that goes through our campus :)

Jethro.

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

The University of Strathclyde is a char

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK (fwd)

Jethro R Binks — 2013-06-13T15:08:17

routing follows? What happens if the business that originally provided the transferred number closes its network or stops operations? Does that break the new provider's service for the number?

Veering slightly, but since you mentioned Atlantic Telecom ... does anyone 
know who acquired responsibility for their ducts?  Particularly the one 
that goes through our campus :)

Jethro.

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
Jethro R Binks, Network Manager,
Information Services Directorate, University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, number SC015263.

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Christian de Larrinaga — 2013-06-13T14:14:10

What I was actually thinking.

There is currently .8p (or .x or .0x p) per minute (every minute) of
traffic flowing to ported numbers from the current dis-functional service.

What is the going rate for other number dip services in other
countries?. Something like CNAM ($0.006) and LRN ($0.0003)would be
competitive.

So the money is definitely built in with gold plating for UK to support
portability a better way.


Christian




Neil J. McRae wrote:

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Neil J. McRae — 2013-06-13T13:39:05

I understand the issue but I really don't think the current situation exists because of the ported number transit charge... 

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jun 2013, at 13:23, "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel-avpPrnUtcvRH4x6Dk/4f9A< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Clive D.W. Feather — 2013-06-13T12:28:15

Leo Vegoda said:

Yes. One of the drivers for the OFCOM work was the collapse of Atlantic
Telecom - anyone who had ported away from them lost service, and for some
reason I forget BT couldn't just take the number block back.

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Christian de Larrinaga — 2013-06-13T12:23:14

The problem is that users like Nigel and myself are disadvantaged as
they want to retain numbers but find they cannot control the quality of
service in doing so.

I don't know what the rates are today but in 2007 Magnus Kelly gave a
very clueful presentation at UKNOF8 that shows the carrier holding the
number range of a ported number retains .8p per min (I think he was
being specific to mobile numbers)

See slide 7 http://www.uknof.org.uk/uknof8/Kelly-Mobile_portability.pdf

That is architecturally significant ;-)


Christian



Neil J. McRae wrote:

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Neil J. McRae — 2013-06-13T09:52:17

I have no idea about those rates, what I can tell you is that unless this is addressed in the architecture (as done in other countries) then any other solutions will have significant pitfalls and a unit cost explosion - given the margin direction on voice generically I don't think that's in anyone's interest.

That probably means a different set of winners and losers that the prior proposal would have but ( personally speaking I agree with some but not all of voda's points) it would mean a sustainable platform in the medium term. 

Regards
Neil 

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jun 2013, at 09:24, "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel-avpPrnUtcvRH4x6Dk/4f9A< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: CWDM kit...

Sheryn, David — 2013-06-13T09:52:49

Many thanks to all to who have responded.  We're reviewing some of our infrastructure over the summer, which I why I wanted to be up to speed on the current states of the market, and I may take-up the kind offers of vendor contacts then.

Briefly, in answer to the questions below: at the time we first deployed this, the cost differential between CWDM and DWDM was significant enough to make a difference, in conjunction with the other factors; CWDM, being passive, simplified some of the availability issues we had to deal with the fibre topology we then had; and finally, it also eliminated some "scoping" issues that we might have had with active equipment and stuff like PCI (device management, etc.)

Thanks again.

--
David

From: Ed Butler [mailto:ed-AU5gVI7YjDs< at >public.gmane.org]
Sent: 12 June 2013 14:57
Cc: uknof-jBudyPQKhIastWRDtpHRarVCufUGDwFn< at >public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [uknof] CWDM kit...

On 12 June 2013 13:36, Sheryn, David <D.H.Sheryn-t4sxTLMIvjm1Qrn1Bg8BZw< at >public.gmane.org<mailto:D.H.Sheryn-t4sxTLMI

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Steve Karmeinsky — 2013-06-13T09:06:14


Did mention it a few times to Ofcom etc back in the day when there was
UKEC ... unfortunately subsumed by Nominet (who have as expected eaten
it).

Steve

Re: Recommendations for VOIP provider in the UK

Steve Karmeinsky — 2013-06-13T09:04:08


This was initially only going to be mandated for mobile networks.

They also lost because Ofcom were not allowed to distort market forces
and as was pointed out their business case was flawed.

However the UK is pretty much the ONLY network in the world that uses
forward porting for mobile.

Steve