North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity
- From: Paul Wall
- Date: Thu Feb 28 02:23:11 2008
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=yuHCdMq40cF6bWiXHvqSb1iT//ZYehdf4eI9sqC56lk=; b=R1xZEwmAEbURYzpU3D4pbaW7mznMnScheyKr/8M3q7X563Fi7XY45pHlpGP/EUCUd9qE730e0PWdQ8u1cFGhnaRl/jz0eYcKvobJVrWtBCmLUzaQIZDjnkAo5PTCqGZ4cRU9dxqt3yGFtJ8bFhZeG5QvNPuBW5kShfJaxnVV1yo=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=IgiMQOlBwKwULscy7XOGMiPwwuy92HUyWuDdKQ6H7UgaB7k8KM5miFMRNXklKfwldPYsqooDFDAlRWZW6Czu3diSlXfd8xAm7G/CYHucE9hbcPoZobKSCVXHdsxGJbfUFlUFk/EKyNKHGWdYGQXDAwOQiR2jmgNRYrObMnkGO4I=
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <[email protected]
To keep this OT as much as possible, my question is if a mesh-configuration
of backup routes (where one link could provide 'protection' for many) would
be considered a sufficient replacement for SONET rings, or if the Qwest CTO
is really trying to get out of providing sub 50-msec protected loops and
encouraging L3 and above protection schemes, so that they can even further
over-subscribe their network.
UU/MFS tried running IP on the
'protect' path of their SONET rings 10 years ago. It didn't work then.
More seriously, you *can* avoid using protected links for IP (which is what Qwest seems to suggest) easily, and allegedly using MPLS/FRR you could have sub-second reroute times without having full dedicated protect path.
Building your network on preemptable links (the protect-side) as UU did back in the day is probably of the "I encourage my competitors to do this" solutions.
Paul "Selling more grillz than George Foreman" Wall