On the surface this makes me want to cry. I could be missing something as well.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Will Orton <w...@loopfree.net> wrote: > We've run into an issue with a customer that has been confounding us for a > few > months as we try to design what they need. > > The customer has a location in the relative middle of nowhere that they are > trying to build a protected OC3 to. Ultimately, their traffic on it will be > packet data (IP/ethernet, not channelized/voice). But they seem to be > absolutely 100% set on the idea that they build with Cisco ONS boxes and > that > they run and control the D1-D12 bytes in order to manage protection > switching > on the OC3 (and have their DCC channel for management). > > Since this is the middle of nowhere, we are having to piece it together > from a > few runs of dark fiber here and there and lit services from about 3 other > providers to get from the desired point A to the desired point B. The > issues > we seem to be hitting are: > > -We seem to be unable to find anyone who sells lit OC3 with D1-D12 > transparency for the client. Sometimes we can get D1-D3, but that's it. > > -lit OC3/12/48 is ridiculously expensive comapred to 1g ethernet waves or > 10g > waves (choice LAN/WAN ethernet or OC192) > > 10g waves are cheap enough that we have entertained the idea of buying > them and > putting OC-192/muxponders on the ends to provide the OC-3, but even then > I'm > having trouble finding boxes that will do D1-D12 transparency for client > OC-3. > Building the whole thing on dark fiber so that we could specify the exact > equipment on every hop isn't going to happen, as the "protect" path is > about > 1000 miles and the geography is such that we don't really have a market > for all > the other wasted capacity there would be on that path. > > Having much more experience with ethernet/packet/MPLS setups, we are > trying to > get the client to admit that 1g/10g waves running ethernet with QoS would > be as > good as or better in terms of latency, jitter, and loss for their packet > data. > So far they will barely listen to the arguments. And then going the next > leap > and showing them that we could work towards <50ms protection switching with > MPLS/BFD/etc packet-based protocols is another stretch. > > > Am I missing something here that my customer isn't, or is it the other way > around? > > -Will > >