Ray, from your previous post (29), in combination with this matter releating to WCG, the issue concerning self-healing is one which I should have expanded on, in reply to Teddy's question that had to do with packets being sent to Europe. Several things come to mind here.
One is WCG's purported strategy to forsake traditional SONET-based restoration schemes in favor of linear path and other recovery schemes. (BTW, I don't recall actually reading where WCG stipulated they would deploy linear-only, non-ring architectures. Do do you have a link or release from them that spells this out?) But I've inferred this from other discussions and releases I've read. Actually, their CEO touched on this on CNBC during the week in one such indirect way, which I enumerate, in part, below.
This strategy is probably something that I wouldn't advertise too broadly, myself, at this point in time, despite its potential validity, due to the eyebrow raising it evokes, as witnessed by this discussion. Who knows. Maybe this is the effect they seek.
The following, however, is what I did infer from some other sources: WCG is demonstrating some cockiness - call it self-assurance - about the integrity and the protections afforded by the safeguards put in place along their pipeline routes. They contrast this bullet-proof, almost invincible, quality to the far more vulnerable [they argue] railroad rights of way, highway medians, and private and municipal properties where it appears that backhoes are now being trained to find silica and Kevlar.
Their assertion is that they have had only one major pipeline mishap on these routes over the years that would have affected communications, had they had fiber placed along them at the time. In contrast, they point out, fiber cuts are taking place with regularity along competing routes of the types I've listed, above.
---
Then there is the other matter, that being the philosophical movement by a growing group away from SONET ring recovery. This group is comprised of some operators (mostly those whose province is the upper layers, such as ISPs, backbone providers, etc.), in favor of IP-enabled and fast-circuit- (now to include fast-lambda-) switching schemes, instead. In a way, these new schemes resemble the table-driven, limited-option techniques which I referenced in my earlier reply to Teddy, where I compared these kinds of TDM-paradigm features to those of upper layer Internet Protocol techniques.
These path and circuit switched techniques operating in the photonic layer will also work, with varying degrees of success, each with their attendant trade-off considerations that must be taken into account, as, indeed, SONET also must contend with.
The Layer 3 IP re-routing recovery measure, in fact, were responsible for the purported packet odyssey by packets going to London and Denmark, as Teddy's post mentioned, earlier. This form of is part and parcel to my argument as to why simple A and B route protections such as the one from Winnick, no longer stand out as the only means of providing protections, especially when considerations run deeper into multiprotocol clouds.
Perhaps we'll go deeper into the fundamentals of protection switching, the complexities introduced by multiprotocol environments, and automatic recovery schemes, if there is sufficient interest here in the future.
---
Having said all this, then, doesn't it at least raise some interesting questions as to why the King if IP [CSCO] would spend ~ 7 Billion on a company [Cerent] whose principal strength, as far as I know, is in legacy SONET technology? Are they truly attempting to transform the landscape, as they have stated they would? Or, are they simply buying their way into a legacy landscape, on their own terms, through the use of their enormous spending power?
IMO, the valuations they assigned to Cerent and Monterey (not necessarily the actual amounts, but the compiritive relationships of their merits) were reversed, if you follow some of CSCO's earlier commitments to eliminating the legacy constructs which characterize the incumbents' current architectures.
If they are largely successful in selling additional SONET architectures, then they in some ways defeat the objectives of their own original mission, in other words.
I see no harm in wading in the pool to maintain a presence, which IMO could have been done more prudently through partnering as they proceed onto their next level of next gen provisions, even though SONET is losing favor - some would argue, rapidly. But 7 Billion is deep sea diving, in my book, requiring submersible gear and large reserves of oxygen.
Regards, Frank Coluccio
|
