Scott, Yes - G8032v2.
The engineering project is a task I gave to Adam Kujawski ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>), and he has been researching this for some time. I did cover him on this and he will probably have a better answer. I think we considered Brocade but I’m not sure. With Ciena we are to the point where we are asking questions that baffle the sales engineers and they have been getting the actual engineering team to answer some of them. Documentation seems to be a bit behind. I’m planning on having Adam go to WISPAMERICA, and possibly AF. If there is sufficient interest in a talk on the subject of MEF designs I’m happy to volunteer Adam :-) Lot’s of vendors seems to have proprietary solutions, and to some extent it’s starting to feel like the usual “pay us lots of money for design, implementation, and maintenance services and you don’t need no stinking documentation” routine. That’s not going to fly here so it will be interesting to see what happens given that I have no interest in that type of vendor lock-in. Mark > On Dec 1, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark- > Why Ciena > Brocade? And generally speaking, when Ciena is referring to > G.8032 is that assumed it's the second revision? Their chalk talk video is > clearly referencing features unique to v2, but the documentation only > identifies simply "G.8032". > > Scott > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh via Af > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 05:52 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] ERPS: G.8032 vs Brocade MRP vs ? > > We are evaluating vendors for this at the moment. Ciena is looking like the > winner at the moment, with G.8032 as the loop control topology. > > So far we have rejected Cisco, Juniper, Performant, Accedian, and Extreme as > vendors. > > To answer Forrest’s question - yes, we do need faster recovery than we can > get from MSTP, OSPF, MPLS. While those protocols have worked well, they > don’t have the recovery time we want. > > Other things we are looking for beyond quick recovery time: > > Carrier Ethernet Services (Metro Ethernet Forum) Ethernet OAM Performance > Monitoring (Y.1731) > > I want to be able to offer carrier type services (NNI, E-Line, E-LAN, E-Tree, > E-Access) to other companies over our wireless and fiber network. If you > want to sell services to cell companies they are requiring Y.1731 > (Performance Monitoring) at the handoff. > > We already have pieces of this in place over the wireless network using > Q-in-Q, but want to extend this further. We currently have one other ISP set > up selling services over our wireless network with transparent (to the > customer) Ethernet delivery back to the providers network. It’s pretty cool > in that they can install customers anywhere on our Canopy network and deliver > the Ethernet traffic back to their network. We don’t care what VLAN, IP > Addressing, DHCP, or Authentication scheme they are using - it’s just > Ethernet. > > Mark > > > > >> On Dec 1, 2014, at 1:11 AM, Scott Vander Dussen via Af <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Looking to add Ethernet ring protection switching into our network. I've >> attached a PDF demonstrating the topology of the test tower set. I'm >> leaning toward a G.8032v2 implementation simply because it's ITU standards >> based and not vendor specific. Other options include Brocade MRP, Moxa >> Turbo Chain, etc. Any shared wisdom would be greatly appreciate before we >> get ourselves pot committed. >> >> Scott >> > > > > >
