[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MS-SPring [Was: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter]
given the high number of MS-SPRing protected transport network
already deployed seems reasonable to me, from a Network Operator point of
view, to use at the same time MS-SPRing protection with GMPLS restoration.
Let's say the first failure is recovered via MS-SPRing in less than 50 ms
while subsequent failures can be recovered via GMPLS restoration with lower
Basically that is the rationale behind my initial question.
What is your view on that?
dimitri papadimitriou <email@example.com> on 17/08/2005 14.43.17
Please respond to firstname.lastname@example.org; Please respond to
cc: email@example.com, Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com,
Subject: Re: MS-SPring [Was: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter]
> "why (and where) ring topologies are suitable" ?
> Transport networks (e.g. SONET/SDH, WDM, RPR) have been, and will
> continue to be, widely deployed based on (dual) ring topologies in
> the access/metro because they provide fast protection and reliability
> whilst making efficient use of fibre.
> I do not think this can be disputed so I don't understand where you
> are coming from with this question?
while i do not see why this can't be discussed (e.g. there are dozens of
studies available on this topic) and i can just point out that one can
deliver fast (time efficient), resource efficient and reliable
protection without using rings
therefore, it would worth having some operational feedback and state
what are the real drivers and rationales if such topic is getting
started i.e. what is the real appealing rationale behind this mechanism
note: these are just questions that i think where missing from most
documents produced on this topic since so far and that are important to
last point you are mentioning RPR so what would be the interaction with
the IPORPR WG ?
> Regards, Richard