On Thu, Feb 28, 2008, Joe Abley wrote: > > > On 28-Feb-2008, at 01:56, Paul Wall wrote: > > >UU/MFS tried running IP on the 'protect' path of their SONET rings > >10 years ago. It didn't work then. > > Well, it works so long as whoever was trying to troubleshoot the > circuits at 3am on US Thanksgiving understands that having the system > "switch to protect" is quite bad, in the sense that it causes both > sides to go down at once (I seem to remember there was a protect paths > built for each side of the original ring using a loopback). > > Other than the unfamiliarity with the concept demonstrated by phone > companies, I didn't notice any great fundamental problem with the > idea. The extra 10G of capacity across the Atlantic was arguably more > useful in the grand scheme of things than the being able to recover > from a single-point failure at SONET speeds. It's probably fair to say > there's more real-time traffic on the network today than there was > then, however.
Then you probably haven't been on the ass end of a continental fibre link drop. That actually mattered. Adrian