[36038] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Clear Channel on a T1
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Douglas A. Dever)
Thu Mar 22 14:59:49 2001
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 14:56:46 -0500 (EST)
From: "Douglas A. Dever" <dever@hq.oh.verio.net>
Reply-To: dever@verio.net
To: CARL.P.HIRSCH@sargentlundy.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OFC23079E1.98769693-ON86256A17.0064DF79@sargentlundy.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1010322140639.15381G-100000@hq.oh.verio.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 CARL.P.HIRSCH@sargentlundy.com wrote:
> Salesdroid asks "You wanna give us $$$ for clear channel?"
>
> Us: "..... ?"
>
> Salesdroid: "It's so you can get 64kbit rather than the normal 56k"
>
I'm quite suprised they'd offer you a data circuit that wasn't b8zs. I
think they're just using this as a way to get an extra couple of bucks per
month per circuit. Without falling into a long discorse about timing on a
DS1, the bottom line is that you get ~1.54Mbit/sec because the data stream
is manipulated to maintain timing. A non-clear channel data circuit would
only use 7 bits for data, with the 8th bit always being a 1 to maintain
timing.
Now I'm curious... Can anyone give me a situation where it would be
"better" to have a non-clear channel data circuit?
--
Douglas A. Dever Network Engineering Manager dever@verio.net
"We put the fuse in dot bomb."
-- Dan Lowe on failed Sun Microsystems Ad Campaign
