North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: value of co-location
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Sean Doran wrote: > | Bottom line: about 270,000 pps per port, 14 microsec. ... how about 4 microseconds latency and 15 million cells/sec? (for the same price) Mike (nsc ers does that I guess) > | forwarding latency AND superior reliability. The choice > | for NAP designers everywhere :)- > > Bilal, I think you missed a word. > > "Successful" seems to have been omitted between "choice" and "for". > > Some NAP designers opted for packet shredders, and might > even be getting some thousands of pps total traffic (so they > claim, but then they seem to count very local (i.e., > cross-town) ATM connectivity as "NAP" traffic), as opposed to > the low tens of thousands of packets per second *per port*, > with much of that being traffic between sites with about 30 > times the delay * bandwidth buffering requirements. > > Of course, the fact that the switched FDDI exchange points > have proven to be more reliable in practice than the ATM > exchange points have -- even with a fraction of the load -- > tends to do nothing to diminish the religious fervour of > the people who assert that ATM NAPs are the ultimate single > answer to the needs of the Internet. > > I wonder sometimes if their brains were cellified and passed > through an ATM NAP... > > Sean. > ---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Michael F. Nittmann --------- Senior Network Architect \ / (201) 928 1000 xt 500 ------- (201) 928 1888 FAX \ / [email protected] --- V IOS
|