[97565] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: TransAtlantic Cable Break
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Sat Jun 23 00:20:37 2007
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>,
Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 23:15:10 -0500
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
To clarify my last post, and to partly correct it, I was referring to VZ's =
new
TPE China cable, where I mentioned pending pricing and T&C information. Of
course, VZ already meshes its IP backbones, as a matter of course today, in
existing systems.
Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile
On Fri Jun 22 23:59 , Frank Coluccio sent:
>
>Interestingly, some major transoceanic undertakings have begun looking very
>favorably towards a meshed topology solution, eschewing rings. Verizon is
>championing this approach at the present time as a consortium partner in t=
he
>Trans-Pacific Express (TPE) cable laying venture to China, and offers
>justifications for doing so in several interviews and PPT prezos I've come
>across. Makes sense. From: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yqcrzm
>
>May 2007 Issue of Lightwave Magazine
>
>
>"Last year, Verizon also took steps to improve the reliability of the
>transatlantic portion of its global IP network. In the past, traffic moved=
across
>the Atlantic over SONET rings, which provided redundant paths. However, su=
ch
>architecture only protects against a single failure in a given ring. A fai=
lure or
>service interruption on two or more segments of the same network required =
the
>deployment of a cable ship-the nautical equivalent of the truck roll-to re=
store
>service. Today, Verizon Business operates a mesh network, using Ciena
>CoreDirectors (www.ciena.com), to move traffic between six diverse paths t=
hat can
>be routed onto other undersea networks in the event of a network failure."
>
>
>Of course, these offerings are still being "productized," so it remains to=
be
>seen what terms and conditions they carry, and how they will be priced.=20
>
>Frank
>=3D=3D
>
>On Fri Jun 22 11:56 , Sean Donelan sent:
>
>>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>> Tell that to the 10 gig wave customers who lost service. Very few cable
>>>> systems provide protection at the 10 gig wave level.
>>>
>>> If you don't pay the extra amount for a protected circuit, why should y=
our=20
>>> circuit get protection for free when others have to pay for it? Now, i=
f=20
>>> there are 10G customers with protected circuits who lost service, then=
=20
>>> hopefully they have in their contract hefty penalty clauses against the=
=20
>>> carrier. If not, then they are just plain stupid.
>>
>>Is paying for "protected circuits" actually worth it. Or are you better=
=20
>>off just buying two circuits and using both during normal conditions.=20
>>Use switching at layer 3 to the remaining circuit during abnormal=20
>>conditions. Most of the time, you get twice the capacity for only twice
>>the price instead of a "protected circuit" where you only get the once=20
>>the capacity for twice the price.
>>
>>Of course, there is still the problem some facility provider will "groom"=
=20
>>both your circuits on to the same cable. If you are buying pre-emptable=
=20
>>circuits, hopefully you understand what that means.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
