Re: Outsourced NOC Solutions

[Brandon Martin <lists.nanog () monmotha net>]

On 6/8/20 3:01 PM, Matt Harris wrote:
> Is that considered true by most leased dark fiber providers? If I'm 
> leasing a dark fiber circuit from a provider, I generally expect that 
> what I'm leasing is in fact one [or more] physical strands of fiber - 
> not a somehow redundant connection. Since he mentioned that this would 
> be a dark fiber network, I would tend to assume that's the product that 
> he'd be offering. Indeed, this has also been my experience with other 
> providers, including very large and relatively smaller ones - when 
> leasing dark fiber, or subscribing to a DWDM-based service, I'm going to 
> be tied to a single, specific path and physical disruptions to said path 
> will impact my connectivity. That's always been my expectation and 
> experience at least - am I wrong, or has this changed at some point?

Some carriers offer protected waves.  They're protected at layer 1/1.5 
using a combination of OTN wrappers and optical switches.  My experience 
has been that "wave" services are generally unprotected unless you 
request otherwise.  They're also one of the few "lit" services where 
grooming clauses are not just well-accepted but often standard or even 
implied in the service definition (the service is defined as traversing 
a specific path/paths).  Protection usually comes at a premium cost 
since you're essentially buying the same lambda (or ODU) along multiple 
paths.

Glass is glass.  If you want protection, find more glass.  I'm not even 
sure how you'd offer a protected "dark fiber" service without 
encroaching on the ability of the subscriber to light it to their pleasing.
--
Brandon Martin