|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
I did not work *for* UUNET either. However, I did work for Cascade *at* UUNET as on on-site consultant sometime in 1995. I worked with their network engineers in analyzing traffic patterns, performing network design, and looking at network costs. In addition, I followed their network design closely from 1994-1998. I can definitely state that UUNET had its own separate Frame Relay and (later) ATM backbone network that they did not share with Worldcom's Frame Relay/ATM network. UUNET's L2 switches were directly connected to T3 TDM and later OC-12 TDM links. Prabhu > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig Partridge [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:19 AM > To: Kavi, Prabhu > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not? > > > > In message > <[email protected]>, "Kavi, > Prabhu" writes: > > >I don't think UUNET considered it a waste. UUNET could not have grown > >as quickly as it did during the mid to late 90s without L2 (Frame and > >ATM) technologies. Fortunately for them, they did not have > any pure IP > >only zealots that prevented the pragmatic use of other technologies > >in their networks. Otherwise they probably would not have been able > >to outrun the other ISPs. > > I know the history here pretty well (though since I was never employed > by UUNET, I'll probably get some of it wrong). It doesn't quite match > this description. > > UUNET was an excellently run ISP well before it starting doing the ATM > activity. It came (I suspect) from Rick Adams' days as a > struggling ISP, > competing against Govt subsidized regional networks, in the > 1980s. If you > look at their various SEC filings in their first few years, they're a > tightly run company. > > Once UUNET was acquired by Worldcom, UUNET had access to Worldcom's > network infrastructure, which was heavily ATM, and which UUNET had to > share with the Worldcom's (very lucractive) voice traffic. In that > context, there was a real cost to using bandwidth and UUNET had to use > account for its usage. > > Some other ISPs were/are in a different business model -- > they owned their > fiber runs, outright, and the question for them was whether to put run > ATM over that fiber, and subdivide the bandwidth of a single waveband, > or light two wavebands (one voice/one IP). I've seen the > marginal cost > analysis for that kind of decision, and it often favors two wavebands. > > Craig >
|