[194705] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Aaron Gould)
Wed May 24 10:25:41 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Aaron Gould" <aaron1@gvtc.com>
To: "'Keith Medcalf'" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <abaa270061356d47ac39d51774c675a5@mail.dessus.com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:25:36 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sdn/nfv for the physical layer... c'mon man, don't you know we are going to
have virtual-fiber too , LOL , jk of course
-Aaron
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 5:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
> > This sounds something like the MEF Third Network type stuff.... I
> > mean the ability to setup connection dynamically across network
> > boundaries on-the-fly, via an ordering system... that has always
> > sounded awesome to me... and I've wondered how we could actually get
there one day.
> 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? Reminds me
of the old days when you could directly connect "Chicago" to "Denver" using
a direct connection over a PVC that was routed Chicago -> New York -> Miami
-> Los Angeles -> Denver. Sure, it looks like a direct connection, but ...
Or will this magical interface also deploy robots to build the physical
layer?
