On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:37:08 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
OK. I'll bite. What do you define as a "cheap" router, and just as important, what counts as a "fat" pipe where you are?
Cheap is defined as the undepreciated Ciscos that UUnet threw out when the lyin' backbone engineers sold management the MPLS bill-of-goods in the late nineties. [ Why buy Juniper when you can get second-hand Cisco gear for almost free? ] Fat is 4 OC3s for uplinks at ~$200 per megabit and gigabit for internal at about $40 per fiber mile per month. This is consumer service in Northern New England. At those prices, it is far cheaper to "overbuy" than over-complicate. Naturally, in different geographic areas and different market niches your mileage may vary. Or at least offer an excuse to ignore me.
You didn't choose the well-known router line from the well-known vendor(*) that handles line-speed packets, as long as you don't even whisper "ingress filtering" within it's hearing, did you?
Whispering is not exactly my style. regards, fletcher