Search

ARCHIVED - Telecom - Commission Letter - 8621-C12-01/00 - Co-Location Group (CLG):Consensus Items

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

Letter

File #: 8621-C12-01/00

Ottawa, 27 November 2000

To: PN 2000-17 Distribution List

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Co-Location Group (CLG): Consensus Items

On 3 February 2000, members of the Public Notice 96-28 Distribution List were given an opportunity to comment on the CLG's consensus reports with respect to the following issues:

(a) agreement on restrictions on routing decisions co-located equipment can make;

(b) agreement on additions of certain equipment types to the National Co-location Equipment List, together with affidavits; and

(c) agreement on audit procedures (notification) and equipment types needing co-locator's assistance for audits.

No comments were received.

The Commission approves the consensus reports and directs users and providers of co-location to conduct themselves accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Ursula Menke
Secretary General
Attachments (3)

Prepared by J. Paré, (819) 953-2336

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE: January 27, 2000

REPORT #: CLRE007

TITLE: Consensus on Co-location Equipment Characteristics

OUTCOME: Consensus

The Co-location Group has reached the following consensus on the co-location of equipment which possesses switching and processing functions as well as transmission functions, such as IP routers, ethernet switches and ATM switches.

The CLG notes paragraph 41 in Decision 97-15 that states:

"The Commission concludes that co-location requirements should not extend to accommodating ICs' switching and processing equipment."

The CLG further notes the statement in paragraph 43 in Decision 97-15:

"The Commission generally accepts the Stentor description of equipment suitable for co-location but notes that technologies should not be excluded as efficient transmission methods merely because they have the potential also to provide switching or other functions."

Accordingly, the CLG agrees that:

  1. the Co-locator must ensure that co-located equipment is not used at any time to route traffic directly from one end-user's line to the line of any other end-user without first leaving the Co-locator's designated co-location space;
  2. routing decisions based on traffic destination will not be performed by co-located equipment on traffic bound toward the Co-locator's network, except for network management messages; and
  3. the Co-locator shall allow periodic audits by the ILEC at reasonable intervals or when reasonable doubt of compliance exists, to enable verification of continued compliance with these conditions and other rules for co-location of equipment that may pertain to the particular type of equipment. As required, the Co-locator shall assist in such audits so as to ensure continued compliance.

The CLG agrees that the purpose of permitting routing decisions to be made on information included in individual messages (other than traffic destination) is to avoid restrictions that may inadvertently limit efficient transmission; and that the ILECs may apply to make further restrictions in this regard if they believe that co-locators are abusing this privilege in a manner that violates the letter or spirit of the Commission's directives relating to co-location.

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE: January 27, 2000

REPORT #: CLRE008

TITLE: Consensus on New Additions to NCEL

OUTCOME: Consensus

The Co-location Group has considered the inclusion of DSLAMs, IP routers, ethernet switches, ATM switches, digital cross connects and optical cross connects on the NCEL and agrees that, in light of the consensus achieved in CLRE007, such equipment shall be added to the NCEL. The CLG also agrees that each Co-locator shall, at the time of the first application to co-locate such equipment, provide a fully executed affidavit in the form of Attachment 1.

For greater clarity, DLC terminals continue to be governed, at this time, by the affidavit process set out in CLRE001.

ATTACHMENT 1

 

Equipment Affidavit

IN THE MATTER OF CO-LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT AS DEFINED IN SECTION C OF TELECOM DECISION CRTC 97-15

AND IN THE MATTER OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CO-LOCATION; I, ____________________ (name of Signing Official) _______________, of the City of ______________________, in the Province of ____________________, make oath and say as follows:

1. I am (position/title) of (Interconnecting Carrier's Name) ("the Co-locator") and as such have knowledge of the matter hereinafter deposed to.

2. The Co-locator wishes to co-locate its equipment in (ILEC's name)'s ("the Company") Central Office.

3. The Co-locator requests co-location of its equipment in the Company's Central Office ("CO") location(s) specified in the pertinent co-location application(s) and attests that:

a) the Co-locator shall ensure that co-located equipment is not used at any time to route traffic directly from one end-user's line to the line of any other end-user without first leaving the Co-locator's designated co-location space; and

b) routing decisions based on traffic destination shall not be performed by co-located equipment on traffic bound toward the Co-locator's network, except for network management messages; and

c) the Co-locator shall ensure continued compliance with this Affidavit throughout the time its equipment is co-located in a Company CO in accordance with the terms and conditions for co-location, as amended and agreed upon from time to time. The Co-locator shall allow periodic audits by the ILEC at reasonable intervals or when reasonable doubt of compliance exists, to enable verification of continued compliance with these conditions and other rules for co-location of equipment that may pertain to the particular type of equipment. As required, the Co-locator shall assist in such audits so as to ensure continued compliance.

4. The agreement to allow co-location in the Company's COs of its equipment is made by the Company without prejudice to the acceptance of any other equipment for inclusion in the industry National Co-location Equipment List.

SWORN/AFFIRMED before me at the City of _______________________________________, in the Province of _______________, this ) _______(signature)________________ day of ______________, ______(name of Signing Official)__________(seal/signature)________

Notary or Commissioner of Oaths

IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION

CONSENSUS REPORT

GROUP: Co-location Group

DATE: January 27, 2000

REPORT #: CLRE009

TITLE: Process for Audits Requiring Co-locator Assistance

OUTCOME: Consensus

The Co-location Group has reached consensus on the following points, which collectively establish a framework for audits that require the participation of the Co-locator. This framework is to be used in the absence of alternatives which the ILEC and the Co-locator may find mutually agreeable. This framework does not limit the rights of the ILEC to conduct independent audits pursuant to the COLA.

Frequency: Absent non-compliance, the ILEC shall not require the assistance of the Co-locator at more than two audits per year for any given co-location site.

Audit Procedures: The Co-locator has the responsibility to ensure that all co-located equipment can be audited for compliance with the rules established in CLRE001, CLRE007 and CLRE008 (as may be applicable to the equipment in question), and to provide the ILEC with up-to-date, documented audit procedures in advance of audits.

Notification period: The ILEC shall provide the co-locator with 5 business days' notice of an audit requiring the Co-locator's assistance. Within 2 business days of the ILEC's notice, the Co-locator shall provide the ILEC with a documented audit procedure to allow the ILEC to prepare for the audit.

Equipment types: Audits for the following equipment types will require the assistance of the Co-locator.

  • DLC
  • DSLAM
  • router
  • ATM switch
  • ethernet switch
  • digital cross connect
  • optical cross connect

The ILEC may propose that other equipment types also be subject to audits requiring the assistance of the Co-locator. In such a case, the ILEC shall notify the Co-locator in writing at least 90 days in advance of the first such audit. Three business days prior to the scheduled date of the audit, the Co-locator shall provide the ILEC with a documented audit procedure to allow the ILEC to prepare for the audit.

Audit costs: Absent deliberate or repeated non-compliance, the ILEC and the Co-locator shall each bear their own respective costs incurred in conducting or supporting audits.

Date modified: