poll: are any sizable exchange points using gigabit ether?
or are folks pretty much (ATM?)-switch tech'ed? or do folks have plans to migrate to gig ether (or to definitely Not to, for some reason?) (or change 'gig ether' to some other imminent.technology.that.might.be. compelling.enuf.to.displace.atm) if u wanna send messages 2 me i'll compile/post to save b/w (which presumably saves much more b/w if am posting via atm switches but etc) k
Hiya kc! On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, k claffy wrote:
or are folks pretty much (ATM?)-switch tech'ed?
ATM: A Total Mess.
or do folks have plans to migrate to gig ether (or to definitely Not to, for some reason?)
For connectivity to NAP's like CA*Net 3, GigE.
(or change 'gig ether' to some other imminent.technology.that.might.be. compelling.enuf.to.displace.atm)
Problem with gigE is distance though... So ATM may be the answer for the short term.
if u wanna send messages 2 me i'll compile/post to save b/w (which presumably saves much more b/w if am posting via atm switches but etc)
I'm not even touchin that one with 11-foot pole! :-)
k
wfms
Problem with gigE is distance though... So ATM may be the answer for the short term.
Long Haul GE is capable of the usual ~5-10 mile distances as anything else running over singlemode fiber. In theory it could be run over sonet, though I don't believe hardware exists to do that (yet?) or if it would be worthwhile. There appear to be (http://www.positronfiber.com/pfs/nav/products/ether_set.htm) devices to run fast ether over sonet. Anyone actually using something like this care to comment? Austin
How many network people still have bad dreams about NetEdges? MFS did just what you are proposing, and the number of nasty corner cases showed that this was just not a good idea. jerry
How many network people still have bad dreams about NetEdges? MFS did just what you are proposing, and the number of nasty corner cases showed that this was just not a good idea.
Me, for one. :) Using bridges devices to carry LAN traffic across the wide area presents its own "interesting" set of problems. But it is possible to make it work. For co-located routers, using gig-ether switches as an alternative to Gigaswitches should be a fine idea, in theory anyway. Assuming of course the switches are sufficiently beefy, and behave well. (Another source of bad dreams...) LAN and virtual-circuit based exchanges do solve slightly different problems, though. A vc fabric (such as ATM) can be used where the peers want something looking more like "virtual private peering" with some enforcement by the exchange medium. And something that runs directly over the existing transmission infrastructure (SONET) is better for peers who don't want to colocate routers, since there doesn't have to be a performance penalty or the added complexity of protocol translation. Switched LANs are great when everyone is already in the same room, and the exchange medium isn't reqired to enforce peering policy. And of course true private peering will continue to have a major role. Steve
The LINX and the AMS-IX in Europe are using Gigabit for their ISL's. Jury is still out IMO. LINX are using Packet Engine, Cisco and Extreme, AMS-IX is using Cisco. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. Domino: In the glow of the night. neil@DOMINO.ORG NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
participants (7)
-
Austin Schutz -
Jerry Scharf -
k claffy -
Neil J. McRae -
Stephen Stuart -
Steve Feldman -
William F. Maton