IP and Optical domains?

Wed Jun 22 15:56:56 UTC 2016

The IP and Transport groups are customers of each other.  When I need
a wire, I ask the Transport group to deliver a wire.  This is pretty
simple division of labor stuff.  Transport has the intimate knowledge
of the layer 1 infrastructure and IP has intimate knowledge of
services.  Sure there is information share, but I don't need to assign
wavelengths or protection groups or channels.  I don't need to know if
I'm getting an OTU or some other lit service (except when I do need to
know).  We use clear jargon to order services from each other.
"Please deliver two diverse, unprotected circuits between cilli1 and
cilli2."  If I want LACP or spanning-tree, I want OTU or another means
of ensuring L2 tunneling, so I either predefine these requirements
before we start our relationship or I explicitly order it.

When I think of converging IP and Transport, I think of combining the
extraordinary depth of knowledge required by each group's individual
contributors.  You just turned your 100k employee into a 175k
employee.  On top of that, add that we're all becoming software
developers and you've got a three horned unicorn.  In the end I guess
this is the cycle of convergence to distribution and back writ HR.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Glen Kent <glen.kent at gmail.com> wrote:
> HI,
>
> I was reading the following article:
> http://www.lightreading.com/optical/sedona-boasts-multilayer-network-orchestrator/d/d-id/714616
>
> It says that "The IP layer and optical layer are run like two separate
> kingdoms," Wellingstein says. "Two separate kings manage the IP and optical
> networks. There is barely any resource alignment between them. The result
> of this is that the networks are heavily underutilized," or, from an
> alternative perspective, "they are heavily over-provisioned."
>
> Can somebody shed more light on what it means to say that the IP and
> optical layers are run as independent kingdoms and why do ISPs need to
> over-provision?
>
> Thanks, Glen