Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london

2015-04-12 Thread Mark Tinka 


On 10/Apr/15 14:54, Rod Beck wrote:
 But the fact is that is cumbersome to purchase a point-to-point circuit on a 
 one linear cable system and back it up with another on another cable system.

 Not to mention more expensive.

Expensive, yes, but certainly not cumbersome.

Mark.

Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london

2015-04-12 Thread Mark Tinka 


On 12/Apr/15 21:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
 Ah I see - so buying a protected circuit is the cheap option, for people
 who can't manage their own protection and are willing to accept more points
 of failure as a trade-off?

I see why all are trying to kill the thread, Rod is a salesman; which I
have nothing against, just that that has no place on this operational list.

So let's retire the conversation...

Mark.

Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london

2015-04-11 Thread Tom Hill 
On 10/04/15 12:28, Ben King wrote:
 Can anyone point me in the direction Irish providers that can provide
 layer 2 services from Ireland and hand off in London Telehouse?

I've dealt with EUNetworks for this stuff in the past. It was a pleasant
experience at the time (~4 years ago).

-- 
Tom

Re: [uknof] Layer 2 from Ireland to london

2015-04-10 Thread Nick Hilliard 
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

2015-04-10 Thread Rod Beck 
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.