-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 3/22/2010 2:54 PM, Bit Bucket wrote: > I'm putting together a regional four-node SONET network that will have two > long-haul OC-192 fiber links. To provide path diversity, one leg will be > about 450 miles longer than the other. Termination gear will be Cisco > ONS-15454s and we will be running GigE circuits (protected) across the > links. My concern is that with one leg being more than twice the length of > the other, will BLSR still maintain a "hitless" transition in the event that > one of the OC-192s fails? > > I asked Cisco this question and we went through several techs before it was > escalated to their developers, who labbed it out and said it would work. > This is a little disconcerting, since I seriously doubt I am the first to > ask this question. Is there anyone out there who has done this and could > could share their experience with this type of design? > > > Thanks - > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Stab in the dark here.... if we assume that latency is caused purely by photonic delay, at 725Km, the one-way latency would be about 3.45msec, well within SONET's targetted 50msec switch window. My calculations: 725Km/.7c = 3.45msec Or am I way off? Interesting problem. Let us know how it goes. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkunxOwACgkQQr/gMVyFYyTWYQCgjloTvbtQWK7UAWDM7yB0iDMB Cw8Amwalo6RFdW+0e1BSBYtnBkXC0cG9 =uShU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/