Joe,
There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding how our product works
and what it's capabilities are. I would be happy to share insight
into how MFS uses our equipment and share with you information on
performance and ATM traffic shaping capabilities.
Obviously, I'm also interested in how you tested and measured the
throughput numbers you received. The numbers you are reporting don't
add up. I'd like to help you get to the bottom of the issue.
Thanks,
Rocky Rosas
Director, Technical Services
NetEdge Systems, Inc.
rosas(a)netedge.com
Support: 800 NET-ATM1
support(a)netedge.com
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: UUNet 10Plus
Author: Joe Shaw <jshaw(a)insync.net> at internet_mail
Date: 7/10/97 11:46 AM
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Peter Kline wrote:
> Men,
>
> CPE -- 10baseT/FDDI ---|netedge|--- DS3 ---|netedge|--- 10baseT/FDDI -- switch
>
> In otherwords, the NetEdges act as bridges, which have to be used in a pair
> in order to turn the ethernet or FDDI connection into ATM over the DS3 and
> back. The NetEdges are programmable, and I'm sure that bandwidth is one of
> the things that's configurable.
That's the connection we have alright, but MFS/UUNet says they cannot
limit the amount of bandwidth on it, and that if they gave us a 100Mbps
handoff off the NetEdge box, then we'd get 100Mbps off it and there was
nothing they could do. My response was why not provision the ATM bridge
to 10-13Mbps, and use that to limit the data throughput? Seems that would
work, but they said no go. Frustrating.
>
> We used to run these things fairly full and fairly hard for extensive
> periods of time. I think we were able to get about 30Mpbs full duplex out
> of them. I doubt that dropping packets at ~6Mpbs is the NetEdges' fault
> (unless you had really old ones).
Yes, it was an old one, and after months of complaining they finally
delivered a new one yesterday morning. It is working MUCH better, but as
soon as the link approaches 6Mbps or more, it starts choking hard.
> The fundamental problem at the upper bound is that you're taking IP,
> encapsulating it in ethernet or FDDI, then segmenting and further
> encapsulating that (IP inside ethernet/FDDI) inside ATM. The double
> encapsulation extracts even more of a tax than the !53 bunch usually
> complain about.
>
> If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge
> directly.
Indeed. That's what I plan on doing today... Thanks for the input.
> good luck,
> -peter
>
Joe Shaw - jshaw(a)insync.net
NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services
"Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
