[19697] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Frame Relay encap vis-a-vis point-to-point at UUNET
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Carmean)
Tue Sep 22 14:16:31 1998
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 21:39:49 -0700
From: Dave Carmean <dlc@avtel.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.03.9809212029160.16437-100000@skipper.robotics.net>; from Nathan Stratton on Mon, Sep 21, 1998 at 08:33:27PM -0400
On Mon, Sep 21, 1998 at 08:33:27PM -0400, Nathan Stratton wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Barry L James wrote:
> > Now, I guess my question is: am I getting sold the brooklyn bridge here?
>
> Well no, but it does have some problems. A lot of the Cascades at UUNet
> are the old HSSI cards and have problems over 30 megs.
Anybody done/doing this with Cisco/StrataCom BPX/etc? One of our
providers attempted this with us about a year ago, without success.
This was before CEF/CAR, and they wanted to perform rate limiting/
shaping on our T3 down to 10Mbit/Sec. The idea was to use frame-to-ATM
translation (terminology?) and then ATM QoS tweaks in the BPX,
before shipping it to a 7513 via HSSI.
Cisco wasn't able to make the specific FR card involved work
then, however. I don't remember the switch card P/N.
Is CAR inexpensive enough processor-wise that this and the CT-3
card make the above obsolete/moot?
--
David Carmean <dlc@avtel.net>
Avtel Communications, Santa Barbara, CA +1-805-884-6300
also: <dlc@silcom.com>, <dlc@matrixinet.{net,com}>, <dave@west.net>
PGP fingerprint = B1 57 EB A8 1D B9 87 86 5F 5C 51 A4 F2 5E ED FD
