ubject: RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
> > This sounds something like the MEF Third Network type stuff I
> > mean the ability to setup connection dynamically across network
> > boundaries on-the-fly, via an ordering system... that has alway
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Pedro de Botelho Marcos wrote:
> > The current approach for establishing
> > agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions.
>
> i'm not sure the available data supports this conclusion:
>
> > http://berec.europa.eu/eng/do
>> read "which is not mpls" a few more times. than maybe read a bit on
>> gmpls and optical switching. you may find
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalized_Multi-Protocol_Label_Switching
>> a reasonable place to start.
> Ok, but does this still not pre-suppose that an appropriate physical
>
> >> to me, this was the dream of optical switching and gmpls (which is
> >> not mpls)
> > And, pray tell, what is the use of me setting up "peering" between
> > myself and a network on the other side of the world when the data
> > still has to flow over the same connections, merely encapsulated
>
>> to me, this was the dream of optical switching and gmpls (which is
>> not mpls)
> And, pray tell, what is the use of me setting up "peering" between
> myself and a network on the other side of the world when the data
> still has to flow over the same connections, merely encapsulated
> inside a t
> On May 23, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Pedro de Botelho Marcos
> wrote:
>
> consider
> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand just
> when one needs it,
Wasn't this the initial promise of SDN? Hand wave. Magically connected
endpoints. All QoS'd and bandwidth-guaranteed co
> > This sounds something like the MEF Third Network type stuff I mean
> > the ability to setup connection dynamically across network boundaries
> > on-the-fly, via an ordering system... that has always sounded awesome
> > to me... and I've wondered how we could actually get there one day.
> t
You need an extra 9 lines to handle the overrun.
On May 23, 2017 12:10:52 PM PDT, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:07:14 -0300, Pedro de Botelho Marcos said:
>
>> Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities. For example, consider
>> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" th
> This sounds something like the MEF Third Network type stuff I mean
> the ability to setup connection dynamically across network boundaries
> on-the-fly, via an ordering system... that has always sounded awesome
> to me... and I've wondered how we could actually get there one day.
to me, this
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:07:14 -0300, Pedro de Botelho Marcos said:
> Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities. For example, consider
> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand just
> when one needs it, similarly to how one might spin up extra VMs in the
> cloud to han
ike a lot of initial
cooperation
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Pedro de Botelho
Marcos
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 1:07 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
Hello,
We are a
Pedro de Botelho Marcos wrote:
> The current approach for establishing
> agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions.
i'm not sure the available data supports this conclusion:
> http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6574-2016-survey-of-
Hello,
We are a group of networking researchers from UFRGS, UCLouvain and KAUST.
We are working towards an approach to make interconnection agreements
between networks more dynamic. The current approach for establishing
agreements is cumbersome, typically requiring lengthy discussions. To
accommod
13 matches
Mail list logo
