|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Frame Relay encap vis-a-vis point-to-point at UUNET
Charles Sprickman wrote: > > Please, share... > > I like the CT3 card, but I'm not familiar (except as a customer) with the > Cascade solution and its benefits beyond economics... Well, they cost an arm and a leg for one. You get some really nice port density, but your per-port costs can be pretty high. With a CT3IP, the best you can do is 28 T1s per cisco slot. With the frame relay solution, theoretically you can do several times that many T1s per HSSI port. You will only notice this if many of your customers only use a small fraction of their T1. This is the same as the standard packet-switched versus circuit-switched argument. I personally like the CT3IPs as well, but they only address half of what the Cascade solution addresses. Alec -- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - [email protected] | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ Got clue? Come to ISPF '98, http://www.ispf.com
|