[c-nsp] MPLS-TP on CPT platform vs IP/MPLS core on ASR with TE

[Mark Tinka]

On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 09:50:16 PM Phil Bedard 
wrote:

> Juniper is still pushing to put DWDM optics on the router
> itself, with their 2x100GE coherent tunable PIC out now.
>  The muxing portion of their solution is yet to come but
> right now they partner with the Adva FSP gear and I know
> they have tested it over a few different transport
> systems using alien wavelengths.  Most transport systems
> these days work with alien wavelengths except Infinera.

Infinera do support alien wavelengths, but you'd need to run 
that on the BMM (Band Max Module), which is, basically, the 
line side driver.

So in short, on the customer-facing ports, yes, they only do 
grey light.

> Cisco seems to have abandoned the concept of putting the
> optics on the router, because the density isn't there.
> That's always been the rub with colored/tunable optics
> when you are on the bleeding edge of bandwidth, the
> density isn't there.  There was no way they could do
> 10x100G on the NCS6K using tunable optics.  They are
> more inclined now on the NCS6K and ASR9K to always pair
> the router with a transport shelf and then use
> control/management plane magic to make them look like
> one virtual entity.

This has been their model since they began their IPoDWDM 
schpill on the XR 12000 platform.

> CPAK gives them the ability to use a
> very low cost interconnect, or they can use traditional
> transponders.  It works very well for 100G since you can
> have a 1:1 relationship between router egress port and
> line-side wavelength, treating them as a single entity.

> However that requires you buy into the "NCS" as a
> complete system, or at least use a Cisco router
> (NCS/ASR9K) along with their transport shelf. I know
> they are working to standardize the iOverlay stuff but
> you know how well this stuff interoperates...

And this is why I still have my doubts about the practical 
benefits that IPoDWDM will bring to the majority of 
operators, particularly those that don't run their own 
optical backbones.

If there is still a physical difference between the optical 
and routing gear, the choice of whether you use colored or 
grey light becomes an obvious decision for most operators.

> Juniper coming out with a DWDM PIC with the same density
> is a pretty big feat, even if the PIC weighs like 40lbs.
> :)  However, they will soon double the density on the
> PTX most likely and leave the DWDM solution at half the
> density.  Some transceiver vendors developed a OTU4 DWDM
> CFP but they haven't seen the light of day, however
> tunable OTU4 CFP2 has already been shown.  So the future
> for Juniper and other vendors is to use tunable
> pluggable transceivers instead of built-in optics. 
> Cisco with the CPAK will initially be shut out of that I
> imagine.

The CPAK is a pretty good - what they have done there with 
CMOS photonics is not to be taken lightly. My expectation is 
that if they would like to have a tunable CPAK module, they 
can develop that (but probably won't, as it affects their 
IPoDWDMv2 campaign - NCS2000 + NCS6000, e.t.c.).

Personally, I don't mind whether the MSA standardize the 
CPAK or not, in the short-to-medium term. 100Gbps Ethernet 
purchases are quite specific that it is likely to still make 
sense to buy 100Gbps ports from Cisco together with the 
optics, and beat them enough to sell you the CPAK for close 
to nothing, mostly because of the number of ports you can 
get into the line card, and the heat and power savings that 
CPAK offer today.

Naturally, in the long term, I hope the industry can have a 
reasonably small pluggable that all vendors agree on.

Cheers,

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131128/1fa26b52/attachment.sig>