On Saturday, April 06, 1996 6:04 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Wolfgang Henke wrote: @ @> As Robert Moskovitz pointed out, even the growth in common used backbones @> speeds is not keeping up: @> @> 1. 56 kbps @> 2. 1.544 Mbps increase by 24 @> 3. 44.736 Mbps increase by 28 @> 4. 155.520 Mbps increase by merely 3 @> @> Just keeping in step with past growth patterns would require a step @> to OC-24c at 1244.15 Mbps now, but there are no routers which come @> even close to those speeds. @ @Even backbones are not backbones anymore. Sprint, MCI et al. operate @meshes with multiple internal paths. If you have an average of 8 alternate @paths of OC3c, then you get closer to a 24x multiple of DS3. Of course @it's not really that simple, but I don't think that things are as bad @as they look in your table above. @ @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 But don't forget those "bit buckets" that are sitting there ready to handle the social engineering needs of the net...;-) ...I wonder who has to empty those bit buckets...???...that must be a messy job... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net
you know, i wish that i knew what any of you guys were talking about. it gives me no end of amusement to listen to people postulate about how we run our network. SNR is getting pretty high in this discussion. it's beginning to sound more like a gossip session than a discussion group. Jeff Young young@mci.net
Return-Path: JimFleming@unety.net Return-Path: nanog-owner@merit.edu Received: from merit.edu (merit.edu [35.1.1.42]) by postoffice.reston.mci.net (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA05058; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:46:55 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) id PAA03220 for nanog-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from doorstep.unety.net (root@usi-00-10.Naperville.unety.net [204.70.107.30]) by merit.edu (8.7.5/merit-2.0) with SMTP id PAA03215 for <nanog@merit.edu>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 15:32:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from webster.unety.net (webster.unety.net [206.31.202.8]) by doorstep.unety.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA01348; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:26:55 -0600 Received: by webster.unety.net with Microsoft Mail id <01BB23C5.76052A00@webster.unety.net>; Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:29:27 -0600 Message-ID: <01BB23C5.76052A00@webster.unety.net> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net> To: "'Michael Dillon'" <michael@memra.com>, "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: RE: CIDR, Sprint and the Big guys. Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 14:29:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-nanog@merit.edu Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 1254
On Saturday, April 06, 1996 6:04 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote: @On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Wolfgang Henke wrote: @ @> As Robert Moskovitz pointed out, even the growth in common used backbones @> speeds is not keeping up: @> @> 1. 56 kbps @> 2. 1.544 Mbps increase by 24 @> 3. 44.736 Mbps increase by 28 @> 4. 155.520 Mbps increase by merely 3 @> @> Just keeping in step with past growth patterns would require a step @> to OC-24c at 1244.15 Mbps now, but there are no routers which come @> even close to those speeds. @ @Even backbones are not backbones anymore. Sprint, MCI et al. operate @meshes with multiple internal paths. If you have an average of 8 alternate @paths of OC3c, then you get closer to a 24x multiple of DS3. Of course @it's not really that simple, but I don't think that things are as bad @as they look in your table above. @ @ @Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
But don't forget those "bit buckets" that are sitting there ready to handle the social engineering needs of the net...;-)
...I wonder who has to empty those bit buckets...???...that must be a messy job...
-- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563
e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net
participants (2)
-
Jeff Young -
Jim Fleming