nanog mailing list archives
Re: Optical Wave Providers
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 06:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, tim () 29lagrange com wrote:
I have been looking at optical wave carriers for some long haul 1G/10G across the US.
You probably should describe what you mean by "optical wave". If you mean "I want bit-transparent capacity with grey light handoff, that is not overbooked", then that's not really "optical wave". It will probably do what you want though (if I guess what it is you're looking for).
I have had good historical success by asking for STM64/OC192 and then run 10GBASE-LW (WAN-PHY) over it. If you want the provider to treat your bits as bits and not packets, don't even tell them you're running packets. If they're providing OC192, they don't need to know. Don't even give them the chance to do the wrong thing by telling them you're running WAN-PHY over it. They might configure their system to support WAN-PHY and all of a sudden their transponders/muxponders might now understand the packets you're running over OC192 and CRC check them and drop them without you noticing.
They don't need to know, so don't tell them. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Current thread:
- Optical Wave Providers tim (Sep 01)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Marty Strong via NANOG (Sep 01)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Jay Hanke (Sep 01)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Rod Beck (Sep 01)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Matthew Petach (Sep 01)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Tom Hill (Sep 02)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Leo Bicknell (Sep 02)
- Re: Optical Wave Providers Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 01)