Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london
On 10/04/2015 18:17, Rod Beck wrote: A single protected circuit is easier. easier for what? You end up paying 2x for a mechanism which still has a single point of failure designed in to your underlying network infrastructure - namely the routers connected to each end - while completely failing to get any potential advantage from the wave which isn't being used. This is a silly way of handling resiliency in an IP world because IP networks assume that the underlying network infrastructure doesn't work like this. Circuit-switched networks do, but the vast majority of the world's traffic runs on ip these days and will continue to do so in future. All the while, you'll end up paying exorbitant charges for network termination kit because equipment vendors know that they can royally gouge people for STM capable kit compared to e.g. 1G or 10G router ports. It's even worse when you get into multiple wave service because your scaling costs go up by 2x more than necessary and you completely lose out on economy of scale. If you want actual resiliency at a reasonable cost point, get multiple unprotected waves from different providers and run bfd + mpls FRR. Protected circuits are a relic from a bygone era with increasingly little relevance in today's networks. Nick
Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london
Hold on, Nick. 1. Choose whatever route protection method you want. MPLS fast reroute (not really that fast but probably adequate for lots of IP traffic), traditional SDH 50 millisecond failover, optical protection schemes, etc. I don't care. It is not the point. 2. For small players and smaller circuits route protection is much more convenient, and yes, there is a cost to managing lots of circuits. This is why I get requests for protected circuits. They are optimal given the client's situation. End of Story. 3. by the way, route protection does not double the price of a circuit. Not at Hibernia nor any competitive provider. 4. PS: Don't put words into my mouth. Regards, Roderick. Roderick Beck Sales Director/Europe and the Americas Hibernia Networks http://www.hibernianetworks.com Budapest and New York 36-30-859-5144 rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com From: uknof uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk on behalf of Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 10:26 PM To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london On 10/04/2015 18:17, Rod Beck wrote: A single protected circuit is easier. easier for what? You end up paying 2x for a mechanism which still has a single point of failure designed in to your underlying network infrastructure - namely the routers connected to each end - while completely failing to get any potential advantage from the wave which isn't being used. This is a silly way of handling resiliency in an IP world because IP networks assume that the underlying network infrastructure doesn't work like this. Circuit-switched networks do, but the vast majority of the world's traffic runs on ip these days and will continue to do so in future. All the while, you'll end up paying exorbitant charges for network termination kit because equipment vendors know that they can royally gouge people for STM capable kit compared to e.g. 1G or 10G router ports. It's even worse when you get into multiple wave service because your scaling costs go up by 2x more than necessary and you completely lose out on economy of scale. If you want actual resiliency at a reasonable cost point, get multiple unprotected waves from different providers and run bfd + mpls FRR. Protected circuits are a relic from a bygone era with increasingly little relevance in today's networks. Nick This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.
Re: [uknof] [QUAR] Layer 2 from Ireland to london
Perhaps if you hadn't hijacked this thread immediately into a tedious sales pitch, this wouldn't have become an equally tedious pissing match about the pros and cons of different resilience mechanisms. The very fact that you've sent 50% of the messages on this thread in an engineering forum should perhaps suggest to you that it is time to stfu and let the original question (which was layer 2) be answered. Regards, David On Friday, 10 April 2015, Rod Beck rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com wrote: Hold on, Nick. 1. Choose whatever route protection method you want. MPLS fast reroute (not really that fast but probably adequate for lots of IP traffic), traditional SDH 50 millisecond failover, optical protection schemes, etc. I don't care. It is not the point. 2. For small players and smaller circuits route protection is much more convenient, and yes, there is a cost to managing lots of circuits. This is why I get requests for protected circuits. They are optimal given the client's situation. End of Story. 3. by the way, route protection does not double the price of a circuit. Not at Hibernia nor any competitive provider. 4. PS: Don't put words into my mouth. Regards, Roderick. Roderick Beck Sales Director/Europe and the Americas Hibernia Networks http://www.hibernianetworks.com Budapest and New York 36-30-859-5144 rod.b...@hibernianetworks.com From: uknof uknof-boun...@lists.uknof.org.uk on behalf of Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 10:26 PM To: uknof@lists.uknof.org.uk Subject: Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london On 10/04/2015 18:17, Rod Beck wrote: A single protected circuit is easier. easier for what? You end up paying 2x for a mechanism which still has a single point of failure designed in to your underlying network infrastructure - namely the routers connected to each end - while completely failing to get any potential advantage from the wave which isn't being used. This is a silly way of handling resiliency in an IP world because IP networks assume that the underlying network infrastructure doesn't work like this. Circuit-switched networks do, but the vast majority of the world's traffic runs on ip these days and will continue to do so in future. All the while, you'll end up paying exorbitant charges for network termination kit because equipment vendors know that they can royally gouge people for STM capable kit compared to e.g. 1G or 10G router ports. It's even worse when you get into multiple wave service because your scaling costs go up by 2x more than necessary and you completely lose out on economy of scale. If you want actual resiliency at a reasonable cost point, get multiple unprotected waves from different providers and run bfd + mpls FRR. Protected circuits are a relic from a bygone era with increasingly little relevance in today's networks. Nick This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. -- David Croft For support enquiries please always contact support at sargasso.net and not any named individual. UK: 0845 034 5020 USA: 212-400-1694 Sargasso Networks Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 06404839. Registered Office: 46a Albert Road North, Reigate, Surrey RH2 9EL http://www.sargasso.net/
