|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org To: Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com>, nanog@nanog.org From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 07:42:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <CAB69EHhOAxw_StSyVSOY1=G6AMYAQLUSs2U_LHTaDtrnQF4-Tg@mail.gmail.com> Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org On 25/May/16 00:14, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > Or a very reckless oversubscription ratio and misjudgment of the customer, > example, if a provider had 2 x 100GbE capacity between two locations and > sold a customer a 100GbE EoMPLS transport circuit from A to Z, based on the > mistaken idea of "Well these guys probably aren't going to peak more than > 35Gbps of traffic at any time in the near future....". Frightening. Yeah, I wouldn't do that. Easier and cheaper to deliver the circuit over EoDWDM if you can't reserve enough capacity in the backbone. You could get away with it by doing an N x 100Gbps LAG, but EoMPLS traffic may or may not load balance well, depending on platform and payload. Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |