North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: SONET Interconnect (was RE: MCI)
| Ok, NDA aside then, too. Assume you had to decide now. You go multi | DS3 and wait for new options because you do not need more than 2xDS3 | = OC3c + ATM? Would you go 3xDS3 and load share? Yes to the latter. When we were thinking about scale some time ago, Vadim sketched out a very reasonable proposal for a stacking network topology to build a 3xDS3 network immediately or incrementally. Router technology has changed to the degree that we could now do this fairly cheaply in comparison to any solution which offered comparable bandwidth in a unified form; the key additional costs would involve space for CSU/DSUs, and the extra slots to make up for the poor port density HIP cards give you. This compares favourably with the space requirements of ATM switching equipment, especially when factoring in other cost items such as configuration and maintenance. If building a network with a relatively small set of POPs and circuits that follow fibre paths, the trade off thus would be less space/power/heat/capital costs and more complexity and the ability to do sustained traffic flows at more than DS3. Packet forwarding technology changes in the 75xx architecture appear to have ameliorated the latter too. In networks with very different topologies, YMMV. I suppose the proper quip would be, "gee, wouldn't you have better luck talking with your vendor rather than your competitor?" (or even gee, ATM is neat, go for it!), but I'm in a helpful mood for some reason today. Sean.