North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: number of hops != performance
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Petri Helenius wrote: > If your L3 topology is well aligned with your L1 topology, you usually > end up with more hops. The less intermediate gear, like SONET you > use but do L3 instead, the more L3 hops you have. This is exactly what we do, we run L3 pretty much directly on the fiber with some OEO-repeaters in between, therefore we display much of our infrastructure in a traceroute. We can do a L2 hop instead, that will probably make things less efficient in some cases and will hide the underlying infrastructure, but will make customers happy. I don't like to do silly technical suboptimisations for cosmetical reasons. > > B) you have more places for things to go wrong in both hardware and > > software. > > This is specifically true for the hop-hiders using MPLS or other mostly > pointless multihop recursive switching systems. Quite true. I mean, either the equipment does an L2 or an L3 hop, either way it can go wrong. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
|