On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Here is a question.. a strange one, no less.
Is it feasible to do this:
WASHINGTON DC NEW YORK CITY | B R I D G E | MAE -- 100 Mb/s -- | Cisco | -DS3- | Cisco | -- FDDI or -- (multiple East FDDI | 4700M | | 4700M | 100Base T peers) giga Switch
You may want to go with 7500s, I think the 4700s will have a hard time when the ds3 starts to fill up.
Why? here's why.
Several folks in the same building in NYC want to connect to MAE-East. But, we all don't want T1's or 10 Meg HLI to MAE-East, but DS3. So, this allows us all to connect to the MAE, peer directly with others without an intermediary ASN, and we can split the cost of the routers and the DS3.
I know (at least, I can't think of any reason it can't be done) that is can be done. The unanswered questions are:
1) Will MFS allow us to connect multiple Peers on the same FDDI port (from thier webpage, it looks like it, but I am not sure).
They would 12 months ago, when I wanted to do it.
2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad?
Strange, but I don't think it is "bad". When I needed my Ameritech NAP connection up ASAP and did not have a space for it. I had Ameritech cross connect my NAP DS3 to Wolrdcom and extended it to ATL. People thought it was odd to have 20 ms delay to a NAP connection, but it worked.
3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less attractive (politically) ?
Could be, I think it will depend on how you educate your users. If you get a lot of people that are defaulting to someone or generally screwing things up then yes. If you make sure they have a clue, then I don't think it would be a big deal.
Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please slap me. Thanks.