nanog mailing list archives
Re: IP and Optical domains?
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 05:38:10 +0900
Mark Tinka wrote:
Layer 2 transport is required in any scenario.
Yes, of course, as I wrote: > all the thing to be done at L2 is to watch BER/FER > above some threshold. I don't deny L2 exist, though, if L3 protocols were properly designed, L2 protection is not required. > Dark fibre, for example,
would not have any optical kit on it, and can be fired through
> router-to-router optics. That's L1, which is also required to exist.
We primarily over-provision to support growth. Resiliency comes as secondary benefit. If you are deploying additional bandwidth just for protection, I hope you're my competitor.
So, you deny the original point of "The result of this is that the networks are heavily underutilized". OK. Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: IP and Optical domains?, (continued)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 18)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Randy Bush (Jun 18)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Glen Kent (Jun 18)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 18)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mikael Abrahamsson (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Masataka Ohta (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 20)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Masataka Ohta (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Masataka Ohta (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Masataka Ohta (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Mark Tinka (Jun 22)
- Re: IP and Optical domains? Masataka Ohta (Jun 22)