nanog mailing list archives
Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 09:00:10 +0900
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 path that has sufficient available bandwidth/slots is already present?
not *a* physical path, but a swath of paths from which sufficient capacity can be configured. sadly, gmpls over optical has not yet defied the laws of physics. randy
Current thread:
- Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Pedro de Botelho Marcos (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Nick Hilliard (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Christopher Morrow (May 23)
- RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Aaron Gould (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Randy Bush (May 23)
- RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Keith Medcalf (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Randy Bush (May 23)
- RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Keith Medcalf (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Randy Bush (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Randy Bush (May 23)
- RE: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Aaron Gould (May 24)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic Nick Hilliard (May 23)
- Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic LHC (k9m) (May 23)