[190237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP and Optical domains?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Mon Jun 20 03:28:17 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:28:12 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
In-Reply-To: <01e755ec-3be8-fc3c-8892-dba24adcf0b9@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Many of us will remember the days of IPoDWDM. That flopped.
Errrr, it didn't flop at all. I know lots of operators that do this.
> For networks that lease all of their transport, not sure how this will
> help as transport providers will not open their networks up to 3rd party
> IP networks.
Yeah, that's harder. Doing pure photonic transport is operationally
difficult without management integration between optic transport provider
and customer. That part hasn't happened.
> It's two different expenses. If routers made good DWDM switches, this
> would not be much of a problem, but they don't. So you need to two teams
> managing two different sets of kit and opex, which is what the industry
> has been trying to solve for some time now. How do we collapse both of
> these cost centres into one manageable expense, considering that the
> primary reason transport networks exist and expand today is to carry IP
> traffic?
I know operators who have collapsed their "core transport group" to handle
Fiber+DWDM+SDH+IP (design/planning/3rd line operations). I know others
where the IP and optical teams work very closely together and plan the
network together.
If your main business is transporting IP/MPLS then this is obvious that
you need to have the teams work closely together. If your main business is
to L2 switch or bit transport lots of TDM/L2 traffic, then it's less
obvious.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
