IP over OTN or IP over DWDM?

Answered Question
Jul 14th, 2009
User Badges:

these are two main trend in IP core Network construction.

The core different between them is how to dealing with the TDM service or other small granularity service in electrical layer. in Router or in OTN?

What is your opinion? I find many expert or communication fancier here, so beg your answers.

Correct Answer by viyuan700 about 7 years 10 months ago

The core different between them is how to dealing with the TDM service or other small granularity service in electrical layer. in Router or in OTN?


As per my knowledge, difference between IP over DWDM or IP over OTN is which method can take all type of traffic (voice, data, video etc ) in efficient way not just TDM service or granularity (ROuter cannot beat SONET/SDH boxes in handling TDM traffic).


Most of the traffic now a days is IP not TDM, whereas OTN are good for TDM


Question is what can take packet effieciently without too many layers in between. Whether to add IP feature to OTN or Transport feature to Router.


I have no answer who will win IP in router or OTN but IP over DWDM (In router ) will not be the best solution. This method is good for point to point High speed connection things will change if you have lot of traffic to crossconnect.


In other post you have question that how can you separate traffic on different wavelngths, what do you think will your router will act as a crossconnect to segregate different traffic or what if you need only 5 Gig to point A and 5 Gig to point B will the router grrom that traffic?

Cisco Endorsed by salekar
johncurtis1541 about 1 year 1 month ago

Wrong answer. Viewer beware. IP over DWDM is the best solution.

IP over DWDM is the best solution. There is a technicality of IPoverDWDM being the same as IPverOTN by virtue of IPoverDWDM utilizing a part of OTN. OTN=OCh+OMS+OTS. OCh is the only part that is commercially implemented thus far, and OCh is used by IPoverDWDM. 

There is an OTNtutorial.pdf file unofficially released by ITU that says OMS and OTS devices are non-existent. So, we are all for IPoverDWDM. As for your concern about limiting bandwidth based on point A versus point B, there is MPLS-TE to do just that.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (3 ratings)
Loading.
Michael Dooley Mon, 07/20/2009 - 08:03
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

The Optical equipment's primary function is to carry payloads from point-to-point. Performing the multiplex/demultiplex and grooming of DS1 and DS3 is best left to external equipment that specializes in that function.


That said, this mostly depends on your network. In a small network you can deal with the granularity of TDM Service (DS1/DS3) in the Optical Equipment. But since the Optical Equipment is not primarily designed to provide large scale TDM grooming it is very easy to exhaust the hardware resources.


So, you can start out performing this in the Optical Equipment and, as the network grows, move your TDM traffic grooming into external equipment.


Or the short answer... It is best to deal with this in the Router.

viyuan700 Mon, 07/20/2009 - 19:55
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

Performing the multiplex/demultiplex and grooming of DS1 and DS3 is best left to external equipment that specializes in that function.



Hi Mike,


Is a router is the external equipment which can multiplex/demulitplex or groom DS1/DS3 traffic i.e TDM traffic.


Suppose there are 4 places A,B,C,D with CRS-1 using IP over DWDM. 2.5Gbps is required from A to B,C,D. Can CRS-1 multiplex and groom this 3 2.5G to 1 10G to bring up the connectivity?


I have a different idea about IP over DWDM, may be this discussion can tell me something i dont know.



salekar Sat, 04/16/2016 - 20:40
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Hi,

Wait for enhancement feature in NCS 4016. This will solve all your problems.

fiberstorejames Wed, 05/04/2016 - 02:39
User Badges:
IP over OTN is a more cost-efficient solution than IP over WDM, which seems contrary to the first thought of the high cost of introducing a new element (OXC) to the network. Indeed, IP over OTN leads to significant decrease in network cost through reduction of expensive transit IP router ports and parallel exploitation of more scalable and cheap OXC ports.
Correct Answer
viyuan700 Mon, 07/20/2009 - 19:18
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

The core different between them is how to dealing with the TDM service or other small granularity service in electrical layer. in Router or in OTN?


As per my knowledge, difference between IP over DWDM or IP over OTN is which method can take all type of traffic (voice, data, video etc ) in efficient way not just TDM service or granularity (ROuter cannot beat SONET/SDH boxes in handling TDM traffic).


Most of the traffic now a days is IP not TDM, whereas OTN are good for TDM


Question is what can take packet effieciently without too many layers in between. Whether to add IP feature to OTN or Transport feature to Router.


I have no answer who will win IP in router or OTN but IP over DWDM (In router ) will not be the best solution. This method is good for point to point High speed connection things will change if you have lot of traffic to crossconnect.


In other post you have question that how can you separate traffic on different wavelngths, what do you think will your router will act as a crossconnect to segregate different traffic or what if you need only 5 Gig to point A and 5 Gig to point B will the router grrom that traffic?

caoxianglei Thu, 07/23/2009 - 01:26
User Badges:

Basicly, I just want to discuss the mian stream technology in IP core.

I think your answer is good, but we all can not say which tech. is better, i think it depend on the customer only.

What the operators want?

johncurtis1541 Sat, 04/16/2016 - 22:50
User Badges:

Wrong answer. Viewer beware. IP over DWDM is the best solution.

IP over DWDM is the best solution. There is a technicality of IPoverDWDM being the same as IPverOTN by virtue of IPoverDWDM utilizing a part of OTN. OTN=OCh+OMS+OTS. OCh is the only part that is commercially implemented thus far, and OCh is used by IPoverDWDM. 

There is an OTNtutorial.pdf file unofficially released by ITU that says OMS and OTS devices are non-existent. So, we are all for IPoverDWDM. As for your concern about limiting bandwidth based on point A versus point B, there is MPLS-TE to do just that.

viyuan700 Wed, 05/04/2016 - 15:31
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

"Wrong answer. Viewer beware. IP over DWDM is the best solution."

Maybe you would have give this verdict 7 years back you would have made billions of $. Even in IP over DWDM they added electronics to take different type of signal/speed and give you one bigger pipe. Things are mixed and are done in a way technically feasible/cheaper. 

"OCh is the only part that is commercially implemented thus far, and OCh is used by IPoverDWDM."  "OMS and OTS devices are non-existent"

As per my knowledge this OCh is not the the optical channel you are assuming in IPover DWDM.

In SONET you can multiplex OC3/OC1 etc to make OC12. Can you take 10 1G wavelength and make one 10G wavelength like SONET. That why there is no OMS but you can Multiplex 16 10G wavelength with a Optical mux. These 16 wavelenth are travelling separately in the fiber not a single 160G. Things can change 20 years later.


From that same document OTNtutorial.pdf file

Currently there are no physical implementations of the OCh, OMS and OTS layers. 

As for your concern about limiting bandwidth based on point A versus point B, there is MPLS-TE to do just that.

Are you saying  MPLS TE can work like a Crossconnect?  


Actions

This Discussion