<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/4/23 19:32, Phil Bedard wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ1PR20MB471490F32F43D9CF55C6EB33F76C9@SJ1PR20MB4714.namprd20.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.gmailsignatureprefix
{mso-style-name:gmail_signature_prefix;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1"><o:p> </o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s my personal opinion we aren’t to the
days yet of where we can simply build an all packet network
with no photonic switching that carries all services, but
eventually (random # of years) it gets there for many
networks. There are also always going to be high performance
applications for transponders where pluggable optics aren’t a
good fit. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think every time the IP space gets close to running an all-packet
network, the Transport folk come out with an easier way to do it,
that it's too hard to ignore.<br>
<br>
Based on that, I think they will always be one step ahead, with the
key advantage being reliability of capacity over the distance, for
the cost.<br>
<br>
The farther your fibre has to run, the costlier it gets to do it
without DWDM.<br>
<br>
I mean, it's only now that 100G-ZR is becoming a reality for packet
networks, and we are talking thousands of US$ for optics to get us
80km - 120km distance. Meanwhile, DWDM vendors can get you 800Gbps
per wavelength in the same distance (or 30X that distance) far less
cheaply.<br>
<br>
I get the appeal of not needing DWDM gear to underlay your packet
network... it's neater and offers fewer points of failure. But
unless you are dealing with very short distances and can ride a
reasonable balance between service features and switching/forwarding
capacity in your router/switch, it's going to be hard to ignore the
DWDM gear if you are trying to be a serious operation, at that
scale, over a wide area.<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>