Hello, I don't know if this is the appropriate list for this kind of subject, so if anyone knows another specific list, please tell me... I'm analysing several DWDM designs to implement at my city, but I'm still a bit confusing about the Metro acess design. I'm supposed to build a physical ring topology with 6 pairs of fiber with an hub-and-spoke logical topology. The ring will have about 40Km. At the HUB we'll install our point-of-presence with a MPLS equipment, and at the spokes we'll use only IP routers. We need an flexible design where we can add or remove spokes as needed with the minimum effort possible. We are planning to have, at a initial deployment, about 200 hundred spokes, and all these spokes are talking only with the HUB site. Everything should work like in an FTTH or FTTB design, no other type of transportation is allowed (wireless and copper). We can't use SONET/SDH. The solution must be only IPoDWDM or complemented with TDMoIP at the access equipment. The problem, is that all documents that I'm reading specifies that we should be worried with faults scenarios at the spokes, so that the optical network does not stops. For example, if the OADM equipment at the spoke is down, the lambda dropped at that site will be down too... Or at least, if we use a lot of lambdas, we need to keep and eye at the points where we have regenerators. We need bandwidth from 10Mbps to 1000Mbps at these spokes. My question is: Is it possible to make such a network in a way that we don't need to worry about faults (electrical or others) at the spokes? If so, how can I do this? I don't want the spokes sites interfering directly at the operation for the whole network. Thanks for your help. -- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim
On 3/21/11 5:36 PM, "Livio Zanol Puppim" <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I don't know if this is the appropriate list for this kind of subject, so if anyone knows another specific list, please tell me...
I'm analysing several DWDM designs to implement at my city, but I'm still a bit confusing about the Metro acess design. I'm supposed to build a physical ring topology with 6 pairs of fiber with an hub-and-spoke logical topology. The ring will have about 40Km. At the HUB we'll install our point-of-presence with a MPLS equipment, and at the spokes we'll use only IP routers. We need an flexible design where we can add or remove spokes as needed with the minimum effort possible. We are planning to have, at a initial deployment, about 200 hundred spokes, and all these spokes are talking only with the HUB site. Everything should work like in an FTTH or FTTB design, no other type of transportation is allowed (wireless and copper).
We can't use SONET/SDH. The solution must be only IPoDWDM or complemented with TDMoIP at the access equipment.
The problem, is that all documents that I'm reading specifies that we should be worried with faults scenarios at the spokes, so that the optical network does not stops. For example, if the OADM equipment at the spoke is down, the lambda dropped at that site will be down too... Or at least, if we use a lot of lambdas, we need to keep and eye at the points where we have regenerators.
We need bandwidth from 10Mbps to 1000Mbps at these spokes.
My question is: Is it possible to make such a network in a way that we don't need to worry about faults (electrical or others) at the spokes? If so, how can I do this?
I don't want the spokes sites interfering directly at the operation for the whole network.
Thanks for your help.
Hello Livio: At some point you will have a single point of failure, it's just a matter of where. If you are running a single-threaded lambda or set of them into a spoke site, that node will go down should your transport gear fail. If you want your add-drop sites to be redundant through the network layer you will have to feed each spoke site from the East and West side of your ring on separate add-drop gear. That will be expensive. If price is no object, you can do that and then use your upper layer protocols to determine path availability. Or, you can build your add drop site with a single device and built-in redundancy (controller cards, power supplies, etc.) to keep the cost down. Long story short, if you need those sites to stay up regardless of anything else, you have to build two of everything at each site. It can certainly be done and many a vendor would like to talk to you about solutions I'm sure! :-) Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksmith@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
I don't rally care about the uptime at the spokes. It's not my responsability to maintain the spokes sites, we'll just give communication to our network. I know that I'll have single point of failure in my topology, like having just one HUB, but I just don't want a spoke interfering in the opeartion of my network. Ex.: I don't want a eletrical failure at one spoke interfering in the operation of other spokes... Thanks for your reply. :) 2011/3/21 Michael K. Smith - Adhost <mksmith@adhost.com>
On 3/21/11 5:36 PM, "Livio Zanol Puppim" <livio.zanol.puppim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I don't know if this is the appropriate list for this kind of subject, so if anyone knows another specific list, please tell me...
I'm analysing several DWDM designs to implement at my city, but I'm still a bit confusing about the Metro acess design. I'm supposed to build a physical ring topology with 6 pairs of fiber with an hub-and-spoke logical topology. The ring will have about 40Km. At the HUB we'll install our point-of-presence with a MPLS equipment, and at the spokes we'll use only IP routers. We need an flexible design where we can add or remove spokes as needed with the minimum effort possible. We are planning to have, at a initial deployment, about 200 hundred spokes, and all these spokes are talking only with the HUB site. Everything should work like in an FTTH or FTTB design, no other type of transportation is allowed (wireless and copper).
We can't use SONET/SDH. The solution must be only IPoDWDM or complemented with TDMoIP at the access equipment.
The problem, is that all documents that I'm reading specifies that we should be worried with faults scenarios at the spokes, so that the optical network does not stops. For example, if the OADM equipment at the spoke is down, the lambda dropped at that site will be down too... Or at least, if we use a lot of lambdas, we need to keep and eye at the points where we have regenerators.
We need bandwidth from 10Mbps to 1000Mbps at these spokes.
My question is: Is it possible to make such a network in a way that we don't need to worry about faults (electrical or others) at the spokes? If so, how can I do this?
I don't want the spokes sites interfering directly at the operation for the whole network.
Thanks for your help.
Hello Livio:
At some point you will have a single point of failure, it's just a matter of where. If you are running a single-threaded lambda or set of them into a spoke site, that node will go down should your transport gear fail. If you want your add-drop sites to be redundant through the network layer you will have to feed each spoke site from the East and West side of your ring on separate add-drop gear.
That will be expensive. If price is no object, you can do that and then use your upper layer protocols to determine path availability. Or, you can build your add drop site with a single device and built-in redundancy (controller cards, power supplies, etc.) to keep the cost down.
Long story short, if you need those sites to stay up regardless of anything else, you have to build two of everything at each site. It can certainly be done and many a vendor would like to talk to you about solutions I'm sure! :-)
Mike -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksmith@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
-- []'s Lívio Zanol Puppim
What's the constraint that rules out using SONET or something similar, which is designed to give you a robust ring topology? I think it's probably quite important to know whether that's really, absolutely out of the question, or whether it's a possibility to relax that in favour of a less painful higher layer solution. -- The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail to lists complaining about them
participants (3)
-
Alexander Harrowell -
Livio Zanol Puppim -
Michael K. Smith - Adhost