RE: Long distance links
No disagreement there. My needs are for point to point links. I think the
solution Howard Frazier has proposed will address the needs of the larger
mesh networks you describe
Bill
Bill St. Arnaud
Senior Director Network Projects
CANARIE
bill.st.arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
+1 613 785-0426
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: September 15, 1999 8:49 AM
> To: Bill.St.Arnaud@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxx; HSSG
> Subject: RE: Long distance links
>
>
>
> It seems yo me that you are talking at cross purposes. The
> diagnostic/management requirements of a point-to-point data link,
> regardless of its length, are dramaticly different from those of a
> topologically more complex network (mesh, dual ring, etc.). Length, in and
> of itself, doesn't create complexity. The management complexity of a WAN
> results from the multiple data paths, each having multiple failure modes.
>
> There is an English expression, "Horses for Courses", which I think
> applies. There are numerous Enterprise Networks with the odd
> flyer location
> requiring a long point-to-point link. As you point out, there are few
> failure modes. Contrast this with the proposals making the rounds for
> transcontinental native GbE networks incorporating DWDMs, optical
> add/drops
> and cross con- nects, EDFAs, etc. While the hardware may turn out
> to be the
> same for both applications, the diagnostic/management software and
> firmware will be quite different.
>
>