[83251] in North American Network Operators' Group
Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Mon Aug 8 13:52:01 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:51:33 -0500
Cc: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
All,=0D
=0D
Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially=0D
interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of=0D
the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that=0D
I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be=0D
to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in=0D
both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for=0D
redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport=0D
layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. =0D
=0D
These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of=0D
routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to=0D
allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in.=0D
In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business=0D
continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention=0D
service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-well,=0D
where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How=0D
long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will=0D
become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either=0D
business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to=0D
concentration of powers?=0D
=0D
While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their=0D
services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it=0D
is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from=0D
disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is=0D
especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However,=0D
the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop=0D
providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back=0D
atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. =0D
=0D
But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon,=0D
SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible.=0D
=0D
Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of=0D
physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once=0D
integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems=0D
that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS=0D
constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher=0D
levels in the stack.=0D
=0D
frank@coluccio.net=0D
------=0D
=0D
> Eight or nine people I had=0D
> talked to thought they had geographically distinct=0D
> ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable=0D
> when the second cut took it down hard.=0D
=0D
Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy=0D
seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into=0D
their contracts?=0D
=0D
Or was this type of service "good enough"?=0D
=0D
--Michael Dillon=0D
=0D
