nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routed optical networks
From: Izaac <izaac () setec org>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 10:25:59 -0400
On Mon, May 01, 2023 at 02:56:47PM -0600, Matt Erculiani wrote:
In short, the idea is that optical networks are wasteful and routers do a better job making more use of a network's capacity than ROADMs. Take the extra router hop (or 3 or 8) versus short-cutting it with an optical network because the silicon is so low-latency anyway that it hardly makes a difference now. Putting more GBs per second on fewer strands means saving a lot of money on infrastructure costs.
This is a very convoluted way of backing into the ole packet-switched vs. circuit switched decision. -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__
Current thread:
- Routed optical networks Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (May 01)
- Re: Routed optical networks Josh Luthman (May 01)
- Re: Routed optical networks Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Matt Erculiani (May 01)
- Re: Routed optical networks Izaac (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Jared Mauch (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Eve Griliches (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Mark Tinka (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Jared Mauch (May 05)
- Re: Routed optical networks Izaac (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Mark Tinka (May 02)
- Re: Routed optical networks Josh Luthman (May 01)
- Re: Routed optical networks Mark Tinka (May 02)