[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

survey about shared mesh and carrier requirements for restoration

Title: Message
Hi CCAMP members,
In addition to the previous email, I'd like to open up discussion about the draft that we recently submitted to IETF. Please take a look at the draft that we posted:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-00.txt
 
Briefly, we discuss in this draft the question of shared mesh restoration in optical transport networks. We surveyed many carriers and had a return rate of 7 out of 8 carriers we contacted. We've been careful with respect to the companies that wished to remain anonymous and aggregated the information in an effort to keep the individual responses anonymous as well.
 
There were several areas of concern for carriers including but not restricted to:
- speed of notification
- network stability
- signaling storms in the case where multiple wavelengths fail at the same time due to a fiber cut
- scalability of a signaling-based solution
- hard bounds on recovery times
 
They also mentioned the need for speedy restoration when it comes to circuits that would be used to carry traffic for time-sensitive applications such as VoIP.
The survey provides a good view of some key carrier issues. We believe that collecting them in one place, as we have done in our draft, provides an excellent basis for discussion within CCAMP about how to resolve problems that are current carrier concerns.
 
So, in parallel with our effort to get more carrier feedback, we'd like to ask the CCAMP community to discuss how the results of the survey can be used to clarify this problem space and to develop appropriate solutions. The interest of carriers has been clearly identified.
In fact, many of them are actively pursuing solutions and deployments in the next 2+ years, and at least one carrier reported that they already have deployments in some portion of their network. We actually just got an email from one of the carriers asking us to move their response from ("expected deployment in the next 2-3 years", to "expected deployment within one year").
 
Thanks,
Richard.