On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Dan Jones wrote:
However, the statement 'would not suffer any bandwidth loss from using f/r encap' is largely dependent on the overbooking of those aggregation ports. If it were me, I would a) make sure that 'full CIR' meant line speed & b) want an assurance that the aggregation ports were
= the sum of all line speeds mapped to them. Otherwise, one could very well argue that those connections are not pt-pt at all but FR clouds
collapsed onto an on-site FR switch.
If there is any overbooking going on on those aggregation connections, you are not getting your T1's worth and might as well have bought a FR connection in the first place.
The point where the congestion and overbooking takes place might be anywhere along the source/destination pair. Assuming provider A was aggregating customers directly onto CT3 cards instead of frame relay switches. The customer is now happy with his "point to point link." Now, further assuming the uplink from the customer aggregation equipment, to the backbone transist system is worth X Mbps, then directly terminating a number of connections onto the gateway with an aggregate _peak_ bandwidth of greater than X Mbps just moves the choke point up further, to the transist <--> Customer aggregation equipment link. This can be moved up to any point in the network. This is where aggresive monitoring and proactive retermination and/or addition of more resources come in. -- Vijay Gill |The (paying) customer is always right. wrath@cs.umbc.edu, vijay@umbc.edu | - Piercarlo Grandi http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~vijay | Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get These are my opinions only. | sucked into jet engines.