Future Optical Internet ATM will play a key role Different Protocol Stacks Integrated to provide different size bandwidth pipes and CoS HDWDM OC-3084 OXC ADM IP/ATM Network IP SONET Network IP Optical Network OADMADM IP/ATM Network OADMADM IP SONET Network IP over ATM IP OpticalIP Sonet QoS & VPNs up to OC3 OC3, OC12, OC48 Greater than OC-48

Future Optical Internet MPLS & ATM OC3, OC12 IP over ATM IP OpticalIP Sonet QoS & VPNs up to OC3 OC-48, OC-192 DWDM LSP ATM VCs SONET LSP ATM VCs

Gigabit Ethernet, 10xGbE or SDL  Gigabit Ethernet, 10xGbE or SDL Framing advantages  frame size = packet size therefore packet switching and SAR more efficient and easier to implement  data format consistent with LAN format with no translation  low cost tributary service - do not need to terminate link on a router or SONET DCS equipment  new 10xGigabit Ethernet will approximately equal OC-192  standard SNMP MIBs, but not accessible by out of band  interoperable standard from many vendors  No scrambling sync or packet loss with state based scrambling  Proposed rate adaptive protocol for “gopher bait” fiber  Gigabit Ethernet Framing disadvantages  not very efficient with 8B/10B block coding  new 10xGigabit Ethernet or SDL may use more efficient coding  No standard out of band management or monitoring  But some WDM suppliers provide this

Packet over SONET Framing  SONET framing advantages  well established jitter specifications  out of band management systems  can be used in SONET networks for fast restoral and protection  very high efficiency - over 98%  SONET framing disadvantages  Susceptible to sync attacks even with X^43  SAR processing more complex as there can be multiple packets per frame, or packets can cross frame boundaries  POS is packet over PPP over HDLC over SONET  tributary services require SONET mux services  NOT and interoperable standard for SONET/SDH transport networks  Interoperable on the other side of ADMs  Requires DCC bypass to work around single vendor solutions  Too much overhead for transparent networks

Optical Internet Architecture “Rings are Dead” High Priority Traffic Cannot exceed 50% of bandwidth in case of fiber cut 3 0C-48 Tx 2 OC-48 Rx Both sides of fiber ring ring used for IP traffic Low priority traffic that can be buffered or have packet loss in case of fiber cut Asymmetric Tx/Rx lambdas that can be dynamically altered WDM Traditional SONET Restoral Traditional SONET Transport Node Traditional SONET Transport Node

10xGbE & CWDM  Several companies have announced long haul GbE and CWDM with transceivers at 50km spacing  10GbE coming shortly  Costs are as little as $12K US per node (or transceiver)  Future versions will allow rate adaptive clocking for use with “gopher bait” fiber, auto discovery, CPE self manage  Excellent jitter specification  Most network management and signaling done at IP layer  Anybody with LAN experience can build a long haul WAN – all you need is dark fiber  Still some issues remain with OAM&P and frame jitter

 Many ISPs, regional networks, municipalities, school districts are purchasing dark fiber or building dark fiber networks up to 1000 km rather than managed bandwidth  With dark fiber increased bandwidth only entails upgraded equipment costs and no additional monthly charges  Significant savings in relocating servers to central site and using VoIP  Also many carriers willing to sell “gopher bait” fiber (fiber that does not meet stringent SONET/DWDM requirements) at a discount  As such, cost of transmission equipment is becoming a significant factor versus cost of fiber  SONET and ATM networks require specialized engineering knowledge and skills  Customers want a technology in the WAN they are familiar with and that is easily extensible from the LAN e.g. Ethernet  Don’t require the same reliability as telco systems Market drivers for GbE in the WAN

Optical Networks for the Rest of Us  With customer owned dark fiber, 10GbE and 4 channel CWDM anybody can build a 40Gbps network up to 1000km or greater at a fraction of cost of traditional telco network  May not be suitable for mission critical traffic (at least not yet)  But ideal for high bandwidth Internet to the school, small business and home  Ring structures are a customer option – not a mandatory requirement  The driver is NOT new applications, but cost savings –1 year payback  Typical cost is one time $20K US per school for a 20 year IRU  In Ottawa we are deploying a 60km- 96 strand network connecting 22 institutions – cost $500K US

Historical Context  In the 80’s the Information Highway was conceived as being a “gateway” service that would be operated by telcos and cablecos  They would define and deliver the services to the end used  But then came along the Internet…  Internet was built by research and education community as set of independent peering networks that exchanged information by a mutually agreed upon set of protocols – TCP/IP  There was no hierarchy or gateways as in the traditional carrier centric view of the world  The Internet empowered the end user not only to be a consumer of services but also an originator of services

Where are we going?  Today the Internet is “virtual” network riding on top of a traditional “connection oriented” network of cooper and fiber  With optical technology such as customer owned dark fiber, customer owned wavelengths, 10GbE etc we can extend the model of the Internet as tool to empower the user to build networks autonomous peering optical  The future telecommunication’s world may be dominated by thousands of customer owned networks that peer at the physical as well as at the virtual level, “Optical Networks for the Rest of Us”  A national or provincial K-12 network with its own wavelengths and dark fiber  A national bank network with its own wavelengths and dark fiber  A national health network with its own wavelengths and dark fiber  A radical departure from the “carrier centric” view of the universe

3 Different Views Telco Network % reliability only in the SONET Ring for the telco, no guarantees for the customer Cableco Network % reliability only in the SONET Ring for the cableco, no guarantees for the customer ISP A ISP B ISP C CO Customer Empowered Network % reliability to the customer but no guarantees for the ISP SONET access ring 2 separate dark fiber builds

Customer Empowered Networks ISP A ISP B ISP C ISP A ISP B ISP C Dark fiber or CWDM Network City A First Dark fiber Network City B Dim Wavelength Long Haul DWDM Second Dark Fiber Network Customer achieves reliability by multi-home to different ISPs ISP D Optical Label Switched Router Dark fiber Network City C

New Challenges and Opportunities  “Customer empowered networks” present a whole new set of research challenges:  Peering and topology protocols in the optical domain – what will be the equivalent to BGP and OSPF in the optical domain  Multi Protocol Lambda Switching?  Defining LSP attributes such as power level, wavelength, encoding, etc?  Interdomain optical MPLS?  Customer controlled establishment of wavelengths, routing and service delivery  Auto discovery of wavelengths?  Management and interface systems, etc, etc