Re: Optical Crossconnects and IP

[Wayne Bouchard <web () typo org>]

> I agree that a more dynamic optical infrastructure allows an IP network to be
> established faster and better (in terms of flexibility), but I disagree with
> the point of view that expects routers to dynamically establish, modify and
> tear-down circuits to other routers on demand. First of all, the current (IGP)
> routing protocols don't have a clue on who they want to talk to, they talk to
> whoever is out there and answers their HELLOs. Secondly, we tried this before
> (ATM) and it did not work.

Whats being spoken of here is a bit different than ATM. Put simply:
Build a network of MPLS tunnels (gah, I can't believe I'm about to say
MPLS is usefull..) from router A to router B. When this tunnel goes
out to reserve bandwidth, it does so. Litterally. At the optical
level. Each tunnel becomes a one way circuit in the traditional
sense. The router sends out the request to the muxes and they build
cross connects to allow the traffic to flow. And in the case of a
failure, SONET doesn't get involved. The tunnel reroutes itself by
requesting alternate bandwidth.

Of course, its a whole heck of a lot more complicated than that, but
thats one of the uses that was touched on at the last NANOG.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Bouchard                                    [Immagine Your    ]
web () typo org                                      [Company Name Here]
Network Engineer
http://www.typo.org/~web/resume.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------