[102812] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Wall)
Thu Feb 28 02:17:37 2008
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:56:32 -0500
From: "Paul Wall" <pauldotwall@gmail.com>
To: frnkblk@iname.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAADZejQX2qfCQbtUUjLKyQ+yAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_1869_23617258.1204181792743
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <frnkblk@iname.com>
wrote:
> <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
>
>
UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings 10 years
ago. It didn't work then.
More seriously, you *can* avoid using protected links for IP (which is what
Qwest seems to suggest) easily, and allegedly using MPLS/FRR you could have
sub-second reroute times without having full dedicated protect path.
Building your network on preemptable links (the protect-side) as UU did back
in the day is probably of the "I encourage my competitors to do this"
solutions.
Paul "Selling more grillz than George Foreman" Wall
------=_Part_1869_23617258.1204181792743
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <<a href="mailto:frnkblk@iname.com">frnkblk@iname.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<a href="http://telephonyonline.com/access/news/ofc-qwest-optical-0226/" target="_blank"></a><br>
To keep this OT as much as possible, my question is if a mesh-configuration<br>
of backup routes (where one link could provide 'protection' for many) would<br>
be considered a sufficient replacement for SONET rings, or if the Qwest CTO<br>
is really trying to get out of providing sub 50-msec protected loops and<br>
encouraging L3 and above protection schemes, so that they can even further<br>
over-subscribe their network.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Frank<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>UU/MFS tried running IP on the
'protect' path of their SONET rings 10 years ago. It didn't work then.<br><br>More seriously, you *can* avoid using protected links for IP (which is what Qwest seems to suggest) easily, and allegedly using MPLS/FRR you could have sub-second reroute times without having full dedicated protect path. <br>
<br>Building your network on preemptable links (the protect-side) as UU did back in the day is probably of the "I encourage my competitors to do this" solutions.<br><br>Paul "Selling more grillz than George Foreman" Wall<br>
------=_Part_1869_23617258.1204181792743--
