[194702] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Tue May 23 19:40:16 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 17:40:11 -0600
In-Reply-To: <m237bvqhlq.wl-randy@psg.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> >> to me, this was the dream of optical switching and gmpls (which is
> >> not mpls)
> > And, pray tell, what is the use of me setting up "peering" between
> > myself and a network on the other side of the world when the data
> > still has to flow over the same connections, merely encapsulated
> > inside a tunnel?
> read "which is not mpls" a few more times. than maybe read a bit on
> gmpls and optical switching. you may find
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_Multi-Protocol_Label_Switching
> a reasonable place to start.
Ok, but does this still not pre-suppose that an appropriate physical path t=
hat has sufficient available bandwidth/slots is already present?
