Subject: Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch? Date: Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:15:35AM -0500 Quoting Jimmy Hess ([email protected]): > On 9/8/12, Måns Nilsson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch? Date: > > Just the fact that BFD had to be reinvented shows that there is ample > > reason to prefer the steady-train-of-frames-with-status of SONET/SDH over > > perhaps-nobody-sent-a-packet-or-the-line-is-dead quagmire of Ethernet -- > > Not all Ethernet switching implementations are necessarily equal; > there are 802.3ah OA&M and 802.1ag connectivity fault management / > Loopback (MAC ping) / Continuity Check Protocol / Link Trace. (Which > aren't much use without management software, however.)
Of course. > There /are/ reasons to prefer SONET for certain networks or > applications; so it might (or might not) be a reasonable requirement, > it just depends. Yes. > Price is not one of those reasons; all the added complexity and use > of less common equipment has some major costs, not to mention risks, > involved if mixing many different service providers' products. SONET > comes at a massive price premium per port and switching table entry on > hardware modules that are much more expensive than 10g switches, and > providers often charge a big premium regardless... Yes. The 6x difference I alluded to was a comparison of line cards for OC192 and 10GE on major league routers, like CRS or T-series. Most of the bits are the same, yet the price \delta is insane. > Therefore; it is not the least bit surprising that a 10g wave would be > massively less expensive in many cases than an OC3 over a long > distance between point A and point B. Especially since it might be possible to get it provisioneed e2e. > As I see it... if you are thinking of 1000 miles of dark fiber to > nowhere to support an OC3, then forget the "wasted" capacity; the > cost of all that dark fiber needed just for them should get added to > the customer's price quote for the OC3. Yup. > Same deal if instead you need an OC48 at various hops to actually > carry that OC3 and be able to end-to-end and tunnel the DCC bytes over > IP or restrict equipment choices so you can achieve that D1-12 byte > transparency.... I'm a simple man. I just want the bitpipe to do IP over. It so happens that the combined engineering of the telco business made for a nice set of signalling bells and whistles that tend to work well on long point-to-point circuits. If not perfectly well, then at least orders of magnitude better than a protocol that was designed to sometimes convey frames over one nautical mile of yellow coax. Then again, the yellow coax has evolved, significantly. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Didn't I buy a 1951 Packard from you last March in Cairo?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
