On 12 June 2012 22:11, Andy Linton
It's worth noting that Chorus are constrained to Layers 1 and 2 only - no routing!
Which I personally would argue for various reasons is an untenable and ridiculous technical position to force anyone to take. L2 effectively is a routed service as it is implemented in the back end these days; "This here L2 Pipe goes to that there L2 pipe WAAAAY over there via XYZ intermediate systems" might as well be routing for all intents and purposes IMHO - and if they want to do it as a routed l3 service then why the hell not?
It's worth noting that Chorus are constrained to Layers 1 and 2 only - no routing!
Which I personally would argue for various reasons is an untenable and ridiculous technical position to force anyone to take. L2 effectively is a routed service as it is implemented in the back end these days; "This here L2 Pipe goes to that there L2 pipe WAAAAY over there via XYZ intermediate systems" might as well be routing for all intents and purposes IMHO - and if they want to do it as a routed l3 service then why the hell not? If I remember correctly the point of that distinction is to prevent Chorus(2) or LFC's from becoming a service provider to consumers. If so then let that statement stand, but the hell cares about the technical implementation detail IMNSHO or by sticking to the rules when it makes no sense. For example; How about a Big City Council - Auckland say ... Currently they will need to setup a shell company and become an RSP so they can provide services back to themselves for a multi-site situation. Is this desirable? I am not sure.