IP and Optical domains?

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Mon Jun 20 07:59:03 UTC 2016



On 20/Jun/16 09:28, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

>  
>
> Errrr, it didn't flop at all. I know lots of operators that do this.

Not the technology - I meant the goal, i.e., that IPoDWDM will merge the
optical and IP domains, simplify operations, remove the need for
grey-light transponders 100%, make alien wavelengths more accessible,
make GMPLS the unifying protocol between departments, e.t.c.

It failed from that standpoint, but I do know a lot of networks that use
it successfully.

We've received requests for the same from our customers for our
Transport service, but when they do the math on the optics, they just
end up taking a regular EoDWDM port instead.


>  
>
> Yeah, that's harder. Doing pure photonic transport is operationally
> difficult without management integration between optic transport
> provider and customer. That part hasn't happened.

And this has always been my biggest concern.

Collapsing the optical and IP domains only, then, really appeals to
operators that run their own network end-to-end. This relegates the
opportunity to incumbents or ISP's and content providers that invest in
their own dark fibre.

Then again, the incumbents are a huge market for equipment and software
vendors, so this will go on anyway, and those who lease capacity on a
100% basis will have to find their feet in all the mud.

>
>
> I know operators who have collapsed their "core transport group" to
> handle Fiber+DWDM+SDH+IP (design/planning/3rd line operations). I know
> others where the IP and optical teams work very closely together and
> plan the network together.
>
> If your main business is transporting IP/MPLS then this is obvious
> that you need to have the teams work closely together. If your main
> business is to L2 switch or bit transport lots of TDM/L2 traffic, then
> it's less obvious.

Agree.

I run a team that manages both Transport and IP, so it's easier for us
from this perspective. But several other operators, especially the large
incumbents, have Chinese walls between both teams.

Mark.




More information about the NANOG mailing list