On 10/04/2015 18:17, Rod Beck wrote: > A single protected circuit is easier.
easier for what? You end up paying 2x for a mechanism which still has a single point of failure designed in to your underlying network infrastructure - namely the routers connected to each end - while completely failing to get any potential advantage from the wave which isn't being used. This is a silly way of handling resiliency in an IP world because IP networks assume that the underlying network infrastructure doesn't work like this. Circuit-switched networks do, but the vast majority of the world's traffic runs on ip these days and will continue to do so in future. All the while, you'll end up paying exorbitant charges for network termination kit because equipment vendors know that they can royally gouge people for STM capable kit compared to e.g. 1G or 10G router ports. It's even worse when you get into multiple wave service because your scaling costs go up by 2x more than necessary and you completely lose out on economy of scale. If you want actual resiliency at a reasonable cost point, get multiple unprotected waves from different providers and run bfd + mpls FRR. Protected circuits are a relic from a bygone era with increasingly little relevance in today's networks. Nick
