Talk:V5 interface

ANSI world

"describes the equivalent of V5.2 in the ANSI world".

What's that? Jim.henderson (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats what? I dont really understand your question. Beardybloke (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Frankly this entire page needs a re-write - if I do a re-write is anyone willing to offer to be a reviewer for me prior to putting it up? Beardybloke (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that your re-write is an improvement. I added some references (the ETSI specs) to avoid bots tagging for lack of citations. — Dgtsyb (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will help you with any rewrite. I was a participant in the ETSI "Special Experts Group" which created V5 and, in fact, the separation of the call control protocols (translating POTS signaling) and connection control (for concentration) was mine. Further, I won an extended and arcane (but important) technical debate regarding the nature of call control... specifically whether it should be based on stimuli or functions. Some comments below follow...

There's a bit of context to add here. Specifically, Deutsche Bundespost Telekom (now Deutsche Telekom) wanted the standard before they bid their massive Projekt OPAL to modernize the infrastructure of the newly reunified eastern states. As such, they directly sponsored and chaired the SEG. (We met in beautiful Darmstadt.) One should mention Dieter Stolp from DBPT... heck of a nice guy and a great standards chair.

Standards existed in the US for interconnecting the LE and AN well before V5. Specifically, Bellcore TR-08 was already in widespread use. The interface to AT&T's SLC-96 digital loop carrier, TR-08 was disclosed as part of AT&T divestiture. Bellcore had almost completed TR-303, the follow-on, when the SEG started meeting. Bellcore had also begun work on a FTTH standard called TR-909. American telecom standards tend to be different from European standards in a lot of ways, not least of which is the difference between T1 and E1. Thus, the article should say that no European standard existed before, but reference the American predecessors.

V5 gained popularity rapidly. I met a guy in Brazil in 1997 who was selling V5 equipment to the local telco there.

Aspects of V5 were reused or reinvented in the Internet standard IMS. Specifically, the idea that controlling a call is separate from controlling the connection(s) needed to make the call. IMS is thus extensible easily to multimedia calls, where several connections of different types are in use for the same call. In V5, the separation of control enabled both simpler software implementations for V5.1 and extensibility for other types of end-user services (ISDN BRA, high-quality channels, high-bandwidth channels, etc.) for V5.2.

Contact me at dangreenberg at hotmail and I'll be happy to help with more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.236.15 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am still here and, believe it or not, that email address still works. I think a rewrite would be an improvement. For instance, "there is the problem of physically managing thousands of wires out to the local subscribers" is true, but not relevant. V5 is an interface to digital loop equipment... the Access Network (AN)... not the individual (analog) wire pairs that make it to the Central Office (CO). As the next sentence says, prior to V5, the LE->AN interface was proprietary (except in the US, where Bellcore TR-07 and then TR-303 opened it). DBP-T (now Deutsche Telekom) needed as much supply as possible to modernize the former East Germany, so they forced the interface open to spur competition. -- dangreenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.105.160 (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)