On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk - iNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
