Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
On 9/8/12, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org 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 OAM and 802.1ag connectivity fault management / Loopback (MAC ping) / Continuity Check Protocol / Link Trace. (Which aren't much use without management software, however.) There /are/ reasons to prefer SONET for certain networks or applications; so it might (or might not) be a reasonable requirement, it just depends. 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... 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. 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. 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 -- -JH
Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
Subject: Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch? Date: Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 01:15:35AM -0500 Quoting Jimmy Hess (mysi...@gmail.com): On 9/8/12, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org 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 OAM 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
Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012, Måns Nilsson wrote: Still, the stupid f€%€/# that make prices for linecards made me go GE instead of OC48 for the most recent deployment. In Sweden, both vendors claim about 6 times as much, per megabit, for SDH line cards. The once-in-a-lifetime that happened here (took a while though) was WAN PHY for 10GE. All the benefit of SDH at Ethernet cost. When I approached the 40GE/100GE working group about getting a few of the benefits of this into that standard, I was instantly shut down by people who thought WAN PHY was a huge mistake that shouldn't be repeated. The only thing I wanted was to have frames sent all the times so one would get a basic bit error reading, plus having the PHY send some basic information such as I am seeing light and my world looks ok, so we could get PHY based interface-down when there was a fiber cut. But that wasn't to be, so the only way to get this will be to OTN-frame the whole thing I guess. *sigh* -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
Will Orton w...@loopfree.net writes: I've considered using J's PE-4CHOC3-CE-SFP (OC3 emulated SAToP), then I could do it all with gig-e underneath. Does anyone make a cheaper OC3 circuit emulation module or box? Most likely the customer wouldn't believe such a thing is possible and we'd have to put something in the contract allowing them SLA credit if their OC3 suffers too many timing slips or something. And so you find yourself at the intersection of two timeless maxims: 1) The customer is always right, but not everyone needs to be our customer. 2) Don't say no to the customer, let the customer say no thanks. Time to model the cost/benefit/profit margin of having these folks as a customer at all (I'd imagine that this circuit is not the only thing that they buy from you or you'd be running away even today). What are your engineering costs for this trick? Are you passing that on to the customer? You may find it advantageous to do a pricing model where you do circuit emulation on a hope-for-the-best basis and count on a maximum SLA payout every month (and still make money). Then if you fail to pay SLA credits from time to time, that's pure gravy. -r
Re: Are people still building SONET networks from scratch?
OT, what is the _expected_ latency on each hop/ADM in the SDH/SONET network? HTH, Dan #13685 (RS/Sec/SP) The CCIE troubleshooting blog: http://dans-net.com Bring order to your Private VLAN network: http://marathon-networks.com On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Will Orton w...@loopfree.net writes: I've considered using J's PE-4CHOC3-CE-SFP (OC3 emulated SAToP), then I could do it all with gig-e underneath. Does anyone make a cheaper OC3 circuit emulation module or box? Most likely the customer wouldn't believe such a thing is possible and we'd have to put something in the contract allowing them SLA credit if their OC3 suffers too many timing slips or something. And so you find yourself at the intersection of two timeless maxims: 1) The customer is always right, but not everyone needs to be our customer. 2) Don't say no to the customer, let the customer say no thanks. Time to model the cost/benefit/profit margin of having these folks as a customer at all (I'd imagine that this circuit is not the only thing that they buy from you or you'd be running away even today). What are your engineering costs for this trick? Are you passing that on to the customer? You may find it advantageous to do a pricing model where you do circuit emulation on a hope-for-the-best basis and count on a maximum SLA payout every month (and still make money). Then if you fail to pay SLA credits from time to time, that's pure gravy. -r
Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query)
Oliver wrote: You're basically redefining the term end-to-end transparency to suit your own Already in RFC3102, which restrict port number ranges, it is stated that: This document examines the general framework of Realm Specific IP (RSIP). RSIP is intended as a alternative to NAT in which the end- to-end integrity of packets is maintained. We focus on implementation issues, deployment scenarios, and interaction with other layer-three protocols. Just because something is documented in RFC does not automatically make it a standard, nor does it necessarily make anyone care. That's not a valid argument against text in the RFC proof read by the RFC editor as the evidence of established terminology of the Internet community. It's you who tries to change the meaning of end to end transparency. Denial: not just a river in Egypt. Invalid denial. Masataka Ohta
