The IP and Transport groups are customers of each other. When I need a wire, I ask the Transport group to deliver a wire. This is pretty simple division of labor stuff. Transport has the intimate knowledge of the layer 1 infrastructure and IP has intimate knowledge of services. Sure there is information share, but I don't need to assign wavelengths or protection groups or channels. I don't need to know if I'm getting an OTU or some other lit service (except when I do need to know). We use clear jargon to order services from each other. "Please deliver two diverse, unprotected circuits between cilli1 and cilli2." If I want LACP or spanning-tree, I want OTU or another means of ensuring L2 tunneling, so I either predefine these requirements before we start our relationship or I explicitly order it.
When I think of converging IP and Transport, I think of combining the extraordinary depth of knowledge required by each group's individual contributors. You just turned your 100k employee into a 175k employee. On top of that, add that we're all becoming software developers and you've got a three horned unicorn. In the end I guess this is the cycle of convergence to distribution and back writ HR. On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Glen Kent <glen.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > HI, > > I was reading the following article: > http://www.lightreading.com/optical/sedona-boasts-multilayer-network-orchestrator/d/d-id/714616 > > It says that "The IP layer and optical layer are run like two separate > kingdoms," Wellingstein says. "Two separate kings manage the IP and optical > networks. There is barely any resource alignment between them. The result > of this is that the networks are heavily underutilized," or, from an > alternative perspective, "they are heavily over-provisioned." > > Can somebody shed more light on what it means to say that the IP and > optical layers are run as independent kingdoms and why do ISPs need to > over-provision? > > Thanks, Glen
