North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: TransAtlantic Cable Break
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 the >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, such >architecture only protects against a single failure in a given ring. A failure 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 restore >service. Today, Verizon Business operates a mesh network, using Ciena >CoreDirectors (www.ciena.com), to move traffic between six diverse paths that 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. > >Frank >== > >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 your >>> circuit get protection for free when others have to pay for it? Now, if >>> there are 10G customers with protected circuits who lost service, then >>> hopefully they have in their contract hefty penalty clauses against the >>> carrier. If not, then they are just plain stupid. >> >>Is paying for "protected circuits" actually worth it. Or are you better >>off just buying two circuits and using both during normal conditions. >>Use switching at layer 3 to the remaining circuit during abnormal >>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 >>the capacity for twice the price. >> >>Of course, there is still the problem some facility provider will "groom" >>both your circuits on to the same cable. If you are buying pre-emptable >>circuits, hopefully you understand what that means. >> >> >> > >
|