post 161 continued... (the edit cop got me, I wasn't fast enough)
The point I wanted to add was that the LW article goes a bit far in discussing a lot of SONET esoterica, towards a SONET solution justification in parts, but the general tradeoff analysis rules used to determine wavelength networking scenarios are quite similar.
---------------
What doesn't get taken into account in the NAC/MRVC PR, though, is the lack of a unified undercarriage standard. Indeed, it boasts the ability to do just the opposite, which is an advantage in itself in some respects, but could turn out to be a disadvantage in others. I believe that AHhaha began to discuss this as well.
In the case where an entire lambda is used for GE, for example, or any of the IEEE or ANSI protocols that do not fit SONET parameters "like a glove", these lambdas become unavailable for any other application type without additional and costly conversions.
But having a giga- or tera- bit router for this purpose is not altogether different in magnitude from having a SONET add-drop mux of OC-192 or higher proportions on location, now, is it? I suppose that that would depend on the relative costs of these competing alternatives and the size and frequency of traffic loads, i.e., the traffic mix, involved.
And let's not forget the significance of theological persuasions in this calculus, as well. >smile<
Comments and corrections are always welcome. |
