Qwest desires mesh to reduce unused standby capacity

Thu Feb 28 06:56:32 UTC 2008

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <frnkblk at iname.com>
wrote:

> <http://telephonyonline.com/access/news/ofc-qwest-optical-0226/>
> To keep this OT as much as possible, my question is if a
> mesh-configuration
> of backup routes (where one link could provide 'protection' for many)
> would
> be considered a sufficient replacement for SONET rings, or if the Qwest
> CTO
> is really trying to get out of providing sub 50-msec protected loops and
> encouraging L3 and above protection schemes, so that they can even further
> over-subscribe their network.
>
> Frank
>
>
UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings 10 years
ago. It didn't work then.

More seriously, you *can* avoid using protected links for IP (which is what
Qwest seems to suggest) easily, and allegedly using MPLS/FRR you could have
sub-second reroute times without having full dedicated protect path.

Building your network on preemptable links (the protect-side) as UU did back
in the day is probably of the "I encourage my competitors to do this"
solutions.

Paul "Selling more grillz than George Foreman" Wall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20080228/a2d52f91/attachment.html>