From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr@latency.net] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:23 AM
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:34:35AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for people that didn't want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit.
This, I agree with.
DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit
Dedicated in what sense? "Always up" nature? Aggregation hierarchy / topology? Bandwidth, considering your provider might be _losing_ money with transit/ops/etc costs factored in, if you're using it al full line rate 24x7?
Well, all of the above, except that there is no way to tell if your upstream is losing money or not. Not if their market-communications folks know what they're doing and they're privately-held.
Additionally, you don't have to tune the link and it doesn't need to be hand-rebooted when the CSU/DSU drops (all the things they don't tell you about T1's).
What circuit-level fine tuning and rebooting do you speak of? Is the telco running Microsoft DACS Server(TM) in the CO? ;)
I'm speaking from having spent many nights and week-ends waiting for the telco to bring the line back up, after my CSU lost power/went down/died/etc. That's why we went with DSL (besides straight cost). Granted, after initial build, this didn't happen. Mainly, because the CSU never went down again.
But yeah, putting all your eggs in one basket could make for a nice single point of failure. Or calculated risk. Your call...
That's my point, small shops don't have much choice. Typical Inet start-ups are cases where headcount is far less than server count. Granted, most of the H/W is in a co-lo. <sigh> You guys just don't want to allow a small business to run their own data center, do you? Can't y'all understand that there are serious business reasons for a company to do so?