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@netedge.com Support: 800 NET-ATM1 support@netedge.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: UUNet 10Plus Author: Joe Shaw <jshaw@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@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee