On Nov 4, 10:16pm, William Allen Simpson wrote:
My solution is to take the contracts away from MFS and Ameritech effective immediately, and grant them to someone who knows what they are doing. -- End of excerpt from William Allen Simpson
I have to echo Mike's comments... MFS offers the MAE interconnect service to customers who choose to purchase it. (As far as I know) As you infered and Mike said; portions of MAE-East are definately nearing saturation. Specifically the shared FDDI portion which; according to my diagram contains the MCI vBNS connection, ANS (they also have a Gigaswitch port, however I believe their shared FDDI connection is preferred), and BBN (keep in mind, it might not be correct :). All of these folks are sucking up a good bit of bandwidth all their own -- combine them and you have the equivalent of a fire hydrant pumping water through garden hoses. Now then, I'm sure the appropriate engineering staff at each respective organization is weighing whether to change their MAE connection to a Gigaswitch port, connect directly to certain other NSPs, or even to build their own exchange point. My only closing points would be that, as far as I can determine, both Ameritech and MFS seem to be handling problems reasonably well. One of the reasons I joined the MFS team was because of their attitude to quickly increase service capacity and/or to respond to customer's requests. Rather than doing things too quickly (wasting cash) or doing it too slowly and having a bunch of un-happy customers. speaking for myself... -jh-
Now then, I'm sure the appropriate engineering staff at each respective organization is weighing whether to change their MAE connection to a Gigaswitch port, connect directly to certain other NSPs, or even to build their own exchange point. My only closing points would be that, as far as I can determine, both Ameritech and MFS seem to be handling problems reasonably well. One of the reasons I joined the MFS team was because of their attitude to quickly increase service capacity and/or to respond to customer's requests. Rather than doing things too quickly (wasting cash) or doing it too slowly and having a bunch of un-happy customers.
speaking for myself...
-jh-
Just wanted to point out that the shared FDDI costs $4250/month and a private port on the Gigaswitch costs $5000/month. Both include local loop delivered on-net in DC. Not a huge difference, and I don't think anyone's suggested that the Gigaswitch is close to being maxed out. And they're not putting > 10 users on an etherswitch with a 100mbit FDDI link into the Gigaswitch, so those shouldn't be saturated. Avi
simple, and dumnb Q: hence this fddi is at 90%: why not add another onte? It is bridged anyways. Mike On Sun, 5 Nov 1995, Avi Freedman wrote:
Now then, I'm sure the appropriate engineering staff at each respective organization is weighing whether to change their MAE connection to a Gigaswitch port, connect directly to certain other NSPs, or even to build their own exchange point. My only closing points would be that, as far as I can determine, both Ameritech and MFS seem to be handling problems reasonably well. One of the reasons I joined the MFS team was because of their attitude to quickly increase service capacity and/or to respond to customer's requests. Rather than doing things too quickly (wasting cash) or doing it too slowly and having a bunch of un-happy customers.
speaking for myself...
-jh-
Just wanted to point out that the shared FDDI costs $4250/month and a private port on the Gigaswitch costs $5000/month. Both include local loop delivered on-net in DC. Not a huge difference, and I don't think anyone's suggested that the Gigaswitch is close to being maxed out. And they're not putting > 10 users on an etherswitch with a 100mbit FDDI link into the Gigaswitch, so those shouldn't be saturated.
Avi
---------------------------------------------------------- IDT Michael F. Nittmann --------- Senior Network Architect \ / (201) 928 1000 xt 500 ------- (201) 928 1888 FAX \ / mn@ios.com --- V IOS
hence this fddi is at 90%: why not add another onte? It is bridged anyways.
Mike
Maybe because they want people to pay the difference to upgrade...
Avi
Maybe because inside a DEC GIGAswitch, there's an 800Mb/s crossbar switch such that while the peak b/w between any pair of ports is limited by FDDI's spec (100Mb/s, or 200Mb/s full duplex), the peak b/w between all pairs of ports is limited to a much higher number (800Mb/s.) Thus Andrew's comment earlier about the MAE-East GIGAswitch humming along nicely at 190Mb/s peak load. The shared FDDI can't do that, and a bridge between two shared FDDI's couldn't do that. DEC did something wonderful with that GIGAswitch, it would behoove you both to understand what it was in case you need similar technology inside your own hubs. Not to mention the importance of choosing the right way to connect at a MAE or NAP, and especially not to mention the importance of knowing which side of the MAE-W T3 you want to be on. (As long as I'm singing the GIGAswitch's praises, I'd like to add that DEC is planning a GIGAswitch-to-GIGAswitch interconnect product but it will only run at a few hundred megabits, not the full b/w of the crossbar; and further, they now sell an ATM version of the GIGAswitch in case you don't want FDDI but you need an ATM with working congestion control.)
participants (4)
-
Avi Freedman -
Jonathan Heiliger -
Mike -
Paul A Vixie