[156156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson)
Sun Sep 9 02:56:05 2012
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 08:55:15 +0200
From: =?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org>
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbXAEw8T_jq2bH5EhazrFFm+hFWbWbYTayiXSnRUef_2Lw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--9crTWz/Z+Zyzu20v
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch? Date: S=
un, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:15:35AM -0500 Quoting Jimmy Hess (mysidia@gmail.com):
> On 9/8/12, M=C3=A5ns Nilsson <mansaxel@besserwisser.org> wrote:
> > Subject: Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch? Dat=
e:
> > Just the fact that BFD had to be reinvented shows that there is ample
> > reason to prefer the steady-train-of-frames-with-status of SONET/SDH ov=
er
> > perhaps-nobody-sent-a-packet-or-the-line-is-dead quagmire of Ethernet --
>=20
> Not all Ethernet switching implementations are necessarily equal;
> there are 802.3ah OA&M and 802.1ag connectivity fault management /
> Loopback (MAC ping) / Continuity Check Protocol / Link Trace. (Which
> aren't much use without management software, however.)
Of course.=20
> There /are/ reasons to prefer SONET for certain networks or
> applications; so it might (or might not) be a reasonable requirement,
> it just depends.
Yes.=20
> Price is not one of those reasons; all the added complexity and use
> of less common equipment has some major costs, not to mention risks,
> involved if mixing many different service providers' products. SONET
> comes at a massive price premium per port and switching table entry on
> hardware modules that are much more expensive than 10g switches, and
> providers often charge a big premium regardless...
Yes. The 6x difference I alluded to was a comparison of line cards for
OC192 and 10GE on major league routers, like CRS or T-series. Most of
the bits are the same, yet the price \delta is insane.
> Therefore; it is not the least bit surprising that a 10g wave would be
> massively less expensive in many cases than an OC3 over a long
> distance between point A and point B.
Especially since it might be possible to get it provisioneed e2e.=20
=20
> As I see it... if you are thinking of 1000 miles of dark fiber to
> nowhere to support an OC3, then forget the "wasted" capacity; the
> cost of all that dark fiber needed just for them should get added to
> the customer's price quote for the OC3.
Yup.=20
> Same deal if instead you need an OC48 at various hops to actually
> carry that OC3 and be able to end-to-end and tunnel the DCC bytes over
> IP or restrict equipment choices so you can achieve that D1-12 byte
> transparency....
I'm a simple man. I just want the bitpipe to do IP over. It so happens
that the combined engineering of the telco business made for a nice
set of signalling bells and whistles that tend to work well on long
point-to-point circuits. If not perfectly well, then at least orders of
magnitude better than a protocol that was designed to sometimes convey
frames over one nautical mile of yellow coax.
Then again, the yellow coax has evolved, significantly.=20
--=20
M=C3=A5ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
Didn't I buy a 1951 Packard from you last March in Cairo?
--9crTWz/Z+Zyzu20v
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlBMPVMACgkQ02/pMZDM1cVkXwCff4U8aqNIqBVIy6k2nuH6gbaa
GZwAnA7HhFpsgyInjKWP9gnyWkrD6pS7
=paXG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--9crTWz/Z+Zyzu20v--
