On 9/1/23 21:52, Mike Hammett wrote:
It doesn't help the OP at all, but this is why (thus far, anyway), I overwhelmingly prefer wavelength transport to anything switched. Can't have over-subscription or congestion issues on a wavelength.
Large IP/MPLS operators insist on optical transport for their own backbone, but are more than willing to sell packet for transport. I find this amusing :-).
I submit that customers who can't afford large links (1Gbps or below) are forced into EoMPLS transport due to cost.
Other customers are also forced into EoMPLS transport because there is no other option for long haul transport in their city other than a provider who can only offer EoMPLS.
There is a struggling trend from some medium sized operators looking to turn an optical network into a packet network, i.e., they will ask for a 100Gbps EoDWDM port, but only seek to pay for a 25Gbps service. The large port is to allow them to scale in the future without too much hassle, but they want to pay for the bandwidth they use, which is hard to limit anyway if it's a proper EoDWDM channel. I am swatting such requests away because you tie up a full 100Gbps channel on the line side for the majority of hardware that does pure EoDWDM, which is a contradiction to the reason a packet network makes sense for sub-rate services.
Mark.
