Extending a MAE connection ...
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 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). 2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? 3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less attractive (politically) ? Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please slap me. Thanks.
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.
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
Yes, though some would do it with Netedges :)
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).
Yes, generally, within reason. 2 or 3 aren't a problem, but 10 might be.
2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad?
Bridging makes things harder to see, and always runs the risk that dodos will bridge strange stuff into the MAE fabric.
3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less attractive (politically) ?
If it does, it's too late - you already told everyone about it :) But the answer is: The people who'd want to peer with you probably don't care. And you probably can pick up 5-10% of your traffic bidirectionally via those people at the MAE.
Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please slap me. Thanks.
Avi
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
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).
Probably. But the hard part is getting other people to peer with you.
2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad?
I have not worked with the hssi interface on the 4700, but I would be supprized if you didn't run into a packet forwarding limit well before hitting 45 Mbps. Erik
3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less attractive (politically) ?
Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please slap me. Thanks.
Erik Sherk <sherk@UU.NET>, among others, has noted: I have not worked with the hssi interface on the 4700, but I would be supprized if you didn't run into a packet forwarding limit well before hitting 45 Mbps. That's why I suggested in private email to him that he find a couple of old AGS+es and let the cctl2 handle the packet forwarding. Hardware necromancy can be fun and profitable! ---Rob
On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: ==> ==> Erik Sherk <sherk@UU.NET>, among others, has noted: ==> ==> I have not worked with the hssi interface on the 4700, but I would be ==> supprized if you didn't run into a packet forwarding limit well before ==> hitting 45 Mbps. ==> ==>That's why I suggested in private email to him that he find a couple ==>of old AGS+es and let the cctl2 handle the packet forwarding. ==>Hardware necromancy can be fun and profitable! Unless, of course, he's using the 4700's ATM DS3 module. /cah
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote: ==> ==> 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 ==> Yucky. ==>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). The more germane question here is "will MFS allow us to extend layer 2 across all these devices to provide a multi-access point in NYC?". ==>2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? Bridging is signficantly more troublesome to troubleshoot. Additionally, if these providers love layer 2 so much that they connect their "MAE port" into another switch, and have other interconnects using a bridged environment (yes, I've seen it), getting all the parties to cooperate in debugging spanning tree problems can be difficult. Additionally, if the DS3 between Ciscos is done on an ATM card, keep in mind that you'll lose close to 30-35% of your traffic because of the ATM cell tax--you'll probably get a max of 30 Mbps throughput. If it's HSSI/HDLC, you shouldn't have many problems. Also, while translational bridging has been around for a while, you may experience problems from FDDI->FE. ==>3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less ==>attractive (politically) ? It's a creative solution, I'll give you points for that. /cah
From: "Craig A. Huegen" <chuegen@quadrunner.com> Also, while translational bridging has been around for a while, you may experience problems from FDDI->FE. Which brings to mind... does anyone have a pointer for a two port, FDDI<==>FE translational bridge? Less expensive is better... :) Yes, I know I could do it on a Linux box, but let's just not go there, OK? ---rob
participants (6)
-
Alex Rubenstein -
Avi Freedman -
Craig A. Huegen -
Erik Sherk -
Nathan Stratton -
Robert E. Seastrom