North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo? > > > > > you'll never get better redundancy than having more than > one carrier. > > On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to > one carrier and making sure that they really provide > separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you > have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down > the same conduit, then you do NOT have separacy and as > a result, the redundancy is not there. Which is the case in about 99% of the commercial buildings providers serve. Unless you're designed as a carrier hotel or a colo (even some colos aren't diverse entrance facility), this is the de-facto standard. The reason why is carriers et. al. must pay for conduit access to a building and it impacts pricing, especially if you're not servicing a huge load of service to the building. From the entrace facilities, carriers typically also pay riser conduit fees. Service delivery inside of the prem is insidiously complicated unless you understand a little RE and how OSP is linked to the ISP (in side plant). > > Of course, you can get separacy with two carriers but > it is generally more work to verify that the two companies > do not share fibre or conduit or tunnels. Im a metro loop, they are almost certainly going to share the same path. It is less certain that they will share a conduit. This is standard if you have the route diversity, which is why you want the provider diversity to make it all work. Hope that helps. -M<
|