[190274] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IP and Optical domains?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Tue Jun 21 02:29:29 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>, nanog@nanog.org
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 08:27:13 +0200
In-Reply-To: <01b8eae3-3be0-8ddc-873b-c4c62123d100@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 20/Jun/16 22:38, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
>
> I don't deny L2 exist, though, if L3 protocols were properly
> designed, L2 protection is not required.
I'd like to hear your proposals on how Layer 3 protocols can be better
designed to manage transport characteristics.
>
>
> That's L1, which is also required to exist.
It's Layer 1 and Layer 2. Ethernet is running over those optics, albeit
with no "traditional" optical equipment in between.
>
>
> So, you deny the original point of "The result of this is that the
> networks are heavily underutilized". OK.
Under- or over-utilization means different things to different people.
We upgrade at 50% utilization. Others do it at 70% utilization. Others
do it at 100% utilization. Heck, I know some that do it at 40% utilization.
Since not all operations are the same, I can't tell another person what
I think under- or over-utilization is.
Mark.
