The IP and Transport groups are customers of each other. When I need a wire, I ask the Transport group to deliver a wire. This is pretty simple division of labor stuff. Transport has the intimate knowledge of the layer 1 infrastructure and IP has intimate knowledge of services. Sure there is information share, but I don't need to assign wavelengths or protection groups or channels. I don't need to know if I'm getting an OTU or some other lit service (except when I do need to know). We use clear jargon to order services from each other. "Please deliver two diverse, unprotected circuits between cilli1 and cilli2." If I want LACP or spanning-tree, I want OTU or another means of ensuring L2 tunneling, so I either predefine these requirements before we start our relationship or I explicitly order it. When I think of converging IP and Transport, I think of combining the extraordinary depth of knowledge required by each group's individual contributors. You just turned your 100k employee into a 175k employee. On top of that, add that we're all becoming software developers and you've got a three horned unicorn. In the end I guess this is the cycle of convergence to distribution and back writ HR. On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
HI,
I was reading the following article: http://www.lightreading.com/optical/sedona-boasts-multilayer-network-orchest...
It says that "The IP layer and optical layer are run like two separate kingdoms," Wellingstein says. "Two separate kings manage the IP and optical networks. There is barely any resource alignment between them. The result of this is that the networks are heavily underutilized," or, from an alternative perspective, "they are heavily over-provisioned."
Can somebody shed more light on what it means to say that the IP and optical layers are run as independent kingdoms and why do ISPs need to over-provision?
Thanks, Glen