[32932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Where are ATM NAPs going?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Tue Dec 19 09:34:36 2000
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:32:33 -0500
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001219093232.B41866@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.05.10012190846300.816-100000@kerplewie>; from Alex Rubenstein on Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:49:31AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> He said 'density'.
>
> 16 ports (is that right?) of OC48 in a single rack is the opposite of
> 'density'.
I think some router vendors should also read that statement
very closely. Then s/OC48/OC192/ and read it again.
192 ports of GigE in a half rack is getting close to density.
256 ports of OC-192 in a rack would be great density.
(Yes, I am a dreamer.)
--
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org
Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
