<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Petabit 12/4/2012 | 10:19:38 PM
re: Invites Go Out for Metro DWDM Test Roy wrote: "All of this comes back to the reality that all of the performance monitoring is done in the electrical level, not the optical level. It is, in most cases, less expensive. It has a proven history of correlation to performance. The majority of the traffic is SONET/SDH based which has build in monitoring functionality. The OEO has to be done most of the time anyway, so why not use it."


I agree.

I'm going to disagree as to whether electrical perfomance montoring gives you enough information to figure out what has just gone wrong in you network. Metro networks are typified by a large number of nodes, at which traffic is added and dropped. If we follow you model, we would have no visibility of the channel once it had entered the optical domain, and we would only see it again at the receiver.

Which is not very useful when your channel disappears from the receiver - and you have no clue where it went. It is very useful to know which nodes can see your channel, and therefore work out where it went. Electrical perfomance monitoring is just not going to give you that information.

You argument is exactly why ONI and Nortel are selling a lot of DWDM metro kit - because the optical perfomance monitoring is good enough to allow you to operate a real network with carrier grade reliability. Sorry it doesn't fit your low cost idea of a data network, but if you want reliability you have to pay for it somehow.

cybernet729 12/4/2012 | 10:11:04 PM
re: Invites Go Out for Metro DWDM Test I agree RJC, Gina should know better...

BTW Gina, didn't you copy your long post from somewhere else, like maybe one of my posts or
did you get it from the WCGInvestors Website, where I copied it over here for you because you said it would not look right if you posted it, why?

Shame on you for not giving credit for others
hard work.

What will you do next attack US veterans that served their country?
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Sign In