To my knowledge: |-------| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM | | | 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World) |Cascade| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| | |-------| I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge. At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
-Deepak.
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps, so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
-Deepak.
--- "Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone." Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725
We were one of the first 10Plus Customers as well. It was delivered to us via Half Duplex UTP off an ethernet card in the back of a 7513. I believe they still do this if you share a building with one of their pops. But you will have to ask them, good luck though, I'm still waiting for their news servers to quit kicking out "Too Many Connection" messages to us. The second version we had used two UTP ports on both 7513's (ours and theirs) with BGP running on both and the proper weights. Basically this was a 10Mb full duplex two connection with backup. ;-) Of course deployed like that they both had all the characteristics of Ethernet.
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Doug Davis wrote:
We were one of the first 10Plus Customers as well. It was delivered to us via Half Duplex UTP off an ethernet card in the back of a 7513. I believe they still do this if you share a building with one of their pops. But you will have to ask them, good luck though, I'm still waiting for their news servers to quit kicking out "Too Many Connection" messages to us.
Same problem with us. "Too many connections..." UUNet sure is having some horrible growing pains since being bought by MFS and then WorldCom, and their inability to work with their customers makes me believe they might not be a part of my network any longer. I cannot honestly tell my employer to buy a bigger pipe to UUNet with their past performance and the attitude they've given us over the last 8 months. We shall see... Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services Learn more, and you will never starve.
Men,
From my recollection of NetEdge connections from WorldCom Santa Clara to MFS at Market St. in San Jose, the NetEdges have to be used in pairs, like:
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. 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). 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. In the end, in addition to needing more than the 30Mpbs bandwidth to the MAE which the NetEdges gave us, the NetEdge solution was more trouble than it was worth because of our inability to monitor the NetEdges for trouble (not that they couldn't be monitored, but they were MFS owned gear). We had to rely on Datanet to tell us what was going on, and many times problem resolution gave as a cause FWT (fixed while testing), which customers were always reluctant to accept as cause. If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge directly. good luck, -peter At 07:49 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
To my knowledge:
|-------| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM | | | 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World) |Cascade| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| | |-------|
I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge.
At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
-Deepak.
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps, so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
-Deepak.
---
"Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone."
Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725
Those not interested in Ethernet to ATM control D now... We are trialing a very similar product so I have been following this thread closely. Peter's insight is useful, thanks. Before we go too hard on NetEdge, however, we should understand that there are a lot of options that are used in deploying a service like this. In our case we run the NetEdge in routed mode and leave the DS-3 completely open (Deepak suggested UUNet might also). This ATM flow then goes directly to our GigaRouter over an ATM PVC (DS-3 to OC-3). (FYI, we use the EDGE 40 model.) This eliminates ATM overhead as an issue on the local loop so any loss would have to be "network" related in the upstream direction. The upstream flow is metered by the limitation of the Ethernet access on the customer premise, and although the EDGE 40 has lots of buffers, I would expect few are in use in the upstream direction except to manage SAR/processor pipeline delay. However, this overpowered connection, while generally good for the customer in the upstream direction may pose a problem for the downstream direction where an open DS-3 can blast into the Ethernet. (Even if the DS-3 Local loop is metered (paced) to match Ethernet speeds it should not matter much since we will just be pushing the buffering problem around.) Therefore, the ATM to Ethernet buffer is the key. The EDGE 40 has a pretty deep buffer pool (about 2 Mbytes I'm told) so I would expect a pretty big burst could be tolerated. I would like to know if any of the folks trialing the service were able to determine if their loss/throughput problems were upstream, downstream or bidirectinal. Regards, Mike Gaddis EVP & CTO SAVVIS Communications Corporation Peter Kline wrote:
Men,
From my recollection of NetEdge connections from WorldCom Santa Clara to MFS at Market St. in San Jose, the NetEdges have to be used in pairs, like:
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.
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).
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.
In the end, in addition to needing more than the 30Mpbs bandwidth to the MAE which the NetEdges gave us, the NetEdge solution was more trouble than it was worth because of our inability to monitor the NetEdges for trouble (not that they couldn't be monitored, but they were MFS owned gear). We had to rely on Datanet to tell us what was going on, and many times problem resolution gave as a cause FWT (fixed while testing), which customers were always reluctant to accept as cause.
If you're interested in a second opinion, you might try contacting NetEdge directly.
good luck, -peter
At 07:49 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
To my knowledge:
|-------| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| ATM | | | 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---|Switch |--ATM--|Cisco 4700/7xx0|--(World) |Cascade| 10Plus Cust---|netedge|---DS3---| | |-------|
I have no idea what the xBR is on the DS3 to the NetEdge.
At 03:17 PM 7/9/97 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
My impression [which could be wrong] was that the 10Plus service was delivered over clear channel DS3 between netedges and the actual 10Mbit/s portion was dealt with at the media exchange. I didn't know/think they formatted the DS3 as an ATM 10mbit/s circuit.
Then again, I have never ordered 10Plus service.
-Deepak.
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Joe Shaw wrote:
Well, the ATM connection to the Net Edge box is only setup to do 10Mbps, so at 6Mbps on ATM, you've filled your cells. I think the whole ideaology behind the thing is flawed, and if they're going to sell something they call 10 Plus, they need to at least provide 10 of something other than 10Mbps in theory. I'm not happy with UUNet (it took 5 months to get the Net Edge box replaced), and I doubt they will have anything but the smallest possible presence in our network in the future.
Joe Shaw - jshaw@insync.net NetAdmin - Insync Internet Services "Learn more, and you will never starve." - Paraphrase of Lee
On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Deepak Jain wrote:
You could always plug an FDDI card into the back of the Netedge.
-Deepak.
---
"Don't go with a spineless ISP; we have more backbone."
Alex Rubenstein -- alex@nac.net -- KC2BUO -- www.nac.net net @ccess corporation, 201-983-0725 -- 201-983-0725
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
participants (5)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
dougd＠airmail.net -
Joe Shaw -
mikeg＠savvis.com -
Peter Kline