[29264] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: exchange point media (was: Re: MAE-EAST Moving? ...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Thu Jun 15 10:12:08 2000
From: Alex Bligh <amb@gxn.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: "Lauren F. Nowlin" <ren@us.onyx.net>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:08:34 PDT."
<E132Q1C-0001D1-00@roam.psg.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:04:17 +0100
Message-Id: <E132aFl-0003pF-00@sapphire.noc.gxn.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> i have been suggesting a DACS for many years. then all one needs is one
> channelized oc48 and it's fat city.
As passive DWDM becomes dirt cheap, having a loop carrying to a
redundant optical (wavelength) cross-connect has advantages, like
you can bilaterally upgrade your peering line cards without having
to bother to inform / be bothered by the exchange point (remember
MAE-ATM). I can't see why people would want to put in less than
an OC-3. n x OC-3 + passive DWDM is (I believe) cheaper than OC-48
channelized (per bit per second) for many values of n (i.e. spreading
the DWDM cost across many OC-x's.) - & this will last until
n x parallel OC-192 is insufficient for bilateral cross connect. By
the time anyone listens to your (good) DACS idea, 2.4Gbps (total)
won't be enough.
--
Alex Bligh
VP Core Network, Concentric Network Corporation
(formerly GX Networks, Xara Networks)
