I think that the argument here is that there is a real need to have an aggregate 400Mbp/s "pipe" in service as opposed to 2 each 200Mbp/s "pipes". To gain the redunancy that Mr. Dave suggests, would actually encourage the deployment of -two- additional 400Mbp/s channels.
Then the economics arguments kick in.
Haven't been following this thread all that closely so pardon me if this has already been dealt with.. but note the earlier comment from mfs that the design constraints say loop free layer 2 topology. Which means redundant links don't exist. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Engineering Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------