Welcome to the Cisco Networking Professionals Ask the Expert conversation. This is an opportunity to discuss Metro IP + Optical with Cisco expert Roger Farnsworth. Roger is a Director of Marketing within Ciscos Optical Networking Group. Feel free to post any questions relating to Metro IP + Optical.
Roger may not be able to answer each question due to the volume expected during this event. Our moderators will post many of the unanswered questions in other discussion forums shortly after the event. This event lasts through August 31. Visit this forum often to view responses to your questions and the questions of other community members.
Yes, the 15800 supports Out of Band (OOB) FEC starting with ANSI Rel. 1.6. Out-of-Band FEC utilizes a sophisticated coding scheme which adds redundancy to transmitted data streams, enabling the network to identify and correct corrupted bits and reduce the overall bit-error rate (BER). Cisco's FEC solution utilizes the ITU-T G.975 industry standard based on Reed-Solomon error correction algorithms to achieve an average gain of 7-db over non-FEC solutions. In addition to economic benefits, Out-of-Band FEC also improves transmission quality and provides network monitoring and supervision capabilities to detect link section degradation well in advance of service degradation, therefore enabling service providers to guarantee varying levels of quality of service.
The 15252 supports 16 channels with a 200-GHz spacing. Take a look at this link for additional information:
Please refer to the attached link for all the information you need:
The short answer is yes but this link will provide you with all the information you need:
For me it looks sometimes confusing, that Cisco promotes both Metro WDM+IP solutions (15xxx) as well as router-based solutions (GSR) for Metro Distribution and Core market. An easy answer may be that each product is focused in specific customers profiles and needs, but clearly there is some overlapping there.
Specifically (my main concern) is why Cisco is pushing so hard new SRP MAC, as a SONET like transport layer (Packet Oriented), against Next Generation WDM & SONET solutions?
Bandwidth saving paradox argued by SRP is not a today Carriers concerns; Next Generation WDM/SONET solution brings definitively enough bandwidth (n x 2.5 Gbps in common available solutions). Resiliency currently achieved by WDM rings can hardly be achieved with SRP, which is additionally a non-standardized MAC.
Current SRP resiliency can be also achieved by MPLS Fast Reroute implementations over classical MAC like POS/Ethernet
Additionally, current SRP implementation, does not consider multiple wavelengths approaches, RPR WG is not sure about its inclusion in the standard.
Does make sense to promote an alternative MAC instead to use/promote Next Generation WDM/SONET solutions, which definitively fulfill Bandwidth & Resiliency Carriers requirements, as well as legacy (i.e. TDM) and Next Generation Networking (i.e. SAN) requirements?
At this very moment, I am not clear in regard Cisco strategy and position about these topics, I will like to know your opinion/position about.