TransAtlantic Cable Break

Frank Coluccio frank at
Sat Jun 23 04:15:10 UTC 2007

To clarify my last post, and to partly correct it, I was referring to VZ's new
TPE China cable, where I mentioned pending pricing and T&C information. Of
course, VZ already meshes its IP backbones, as a matter of course today, in
existing systems.

Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile

On Fri Jun 22 23:59 , Frank Coluccio  sent:

>Interestingly, some major transoceanic undertakings have begun looking very
>favorably towards a meshed topology solution, eschewing rings. Verizon is
>championing this approach at the present time as a consortium partner in the
>Trans-Pacific Express (TPE) cable laying venture to China, and offers
>justifications for doing so in several interviews and PPT prezos I've come
>across. Makes sense. From:
>May 2007 Issue of Lightwave Magazine
>"Last year, Verizon also took steps to improve the reliability of the
>transatlantic portion of its global IP network. In the past, traffic moved across
>the Atlantic over SONET rings, which provided redundant paths. However, such
>architecture only protects against a single failure in a given ring. A failure or
>service interruption on two or more segments of the same network required the
>deployment of a cable ship-the nautical equivalent of the truck roll-to restore
>service. Today, Verizon Business operates a mesh network, using Ciena
>CoreDirectors (, to move traffic between six diverse paths that can
>be routed onto other undersea networks in the event of a network failure."
>Of course, these offerings are still being "productized," so it remains to be
>seen what terms and conditions they carry, and how they will be priced. 
>On Fri Jun 22 11:56 , Sean Donelan  sent:
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>>>> Tell that to the 10 gig wave customers who lost service. Very few cable
>>>> systems provide protection at the 10 gig wave level.
>>> If you don't pay the extra amount for a protected circuit, why should your 
>>> circuit get protection for free when others have to pay for it?  Now, if 
>>> there are 10G customers with protected circuits who lost service, then 
>>> hopefully they have in their contract hefty penalty clauses against the 
>>> carrier.  If not, then they are just plain stupid.
>>Is paying for "protected circuits" actually worth it.  Or are you better 
>>off just buying two circuits and using both during normal conditions. 
>>Use switching at layer 3 to the remaining circuit during abnormal 
>>conditions.  Most of the time, you get twice the capacity for only twice
>>the price instead of a "protected circuit" where you only get the once 
>>the capacity for twice the price.
>>Of course, there is still the problem some facility provider will "groom" 
>>both your circuits on to the same cable.  If you are buying pre-emptable 
>>circuits, hopefully you understand what that means.

More information about the NANOG mailing list