[102810] in North American Network Operators' Group
Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Bulk - iNAME)
Wed Feb 27 21:43:28 2008
Reply-To: <frnkblk@iname.com>
From: "Frank Bulk - iNAME" <frnkblk@iname.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:37:58 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I found this section of a Telephony Online article interesting:
Though networking trends point toward an evolution
to mesh networks, nationwide carrier networks
currently lack the physical diversity that would
help carriers realize the benefits of true mesh
networking, Poll said. Qwest, for example, has
about three or four cross-country arteries that
correspond to railway rights of way. Replacing
that with a more mesh-like architecture would
increase the complexity of operating the network.
For one thing, it would require more uniformity
in the capacities of various network routes.
"You'd have to have units of 10 Gb/s traffic
between all points on the network before this
becomes economically viable," Poll said. "When
you place IP capacity, you have to place a lot
of standby capacity to carry traffic along
different paths. If we could get greater
physical diversity in place, we could greatly
diminish the amount of standby capacity we
have to take."
In order to realize the benefits of mesh
networking, Poll said, carriers will need to
cooperate with each other more than they
currently do, using fiber swaps to increase
the geographic diversity of network paths.
http://telephonyonline.com/access/news/ofc-qwest-optical-0226/
To keep this OT as much as possible, my question is if a mesh-configuration
of backup routes (where one link could provide 'protection' for many) would
be considered a sufficient replacement for SONET rings, or if the Qwest CTO
is really trying to get out of providing sub 50-msec protected loops and
encouraging L3 and above protection schemes, so that they can even further
over-subscribe their network.
Frank
