[40401] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: MPLS VPNs or not?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kavi, Prabhu)
Wed Aug 8 11:06:47 2001
Message-ID: <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56CB812A@newman.tenornet.com>
From: "Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
To: "'Craig Partridge'" <craig@aland.bbn.com>,
"Kavi, Prabhu" <prabhu_kavi@tenornetworks.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 10:52:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I did not work *for* UUNET either. However, I did work for Cascade *at*
UUNET as on on-site consultant sometime in 1995. I worked with their
network engineers in analyzing traffic patterns, performing network
design, and looking at network costs. In addition, I followed their
network design closely from 1994-1998.
I can definitely state that UUNET had its own separate Frame Relay and
(later) ATM backbone network that they did not share with Worldcom's
Frame Relay/ATM network. UUNET's L2 switches were directly connected
to T3 TDM and later OC-12 TDM links.
Prabhu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Partridge [mailto:craig@aland.bbn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 9:19 AM
> To: Kavi, Prabhu
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: MPLS VPNs or not?
>
>
>
> In message
> <6B190B34070BD411ACA000B0D0214E56CB8128@newman.tenornet.com>, "Kavi,
> Prabhu" writes:
>
> >I don't think UUNET considered it a waste. UUNET could not have grown
> >as quickly as it did during the mid to late 90s without L2 (Frame and
> >ATM) technologies. Fortunately for them, they did not have
> any pure IP
> >only zealots that prevented the pragmatic use of other technologies
> >in their networks. Otherwise they probably would not have been able
> >to outrun the other ISPs.
>
> I know the history here pretty well (though since I was never employed
> by UUNET, I'll probably get some of it wrong). It doesn't quite match
> this description.
>
> UUNET was an excellently run ISP well before it starting doing the ATM
> activity. It came (I suspect) from Rick Adams' days as a
> struggling ISP,
> competing against Govt subsidized regional networks, in the
> 1980s. If you
> look at their various SEC filings in their first few years, they're a
> tightly run company.
>
> Once UUNET was acquired by Worldcom, UUNET had access to Worldcom's
> network infrastructure, which was heavily ATM, and which UUNET had to
> share with the Worldcom's (very lucractive) voice traffic. In that
> context, there was a real cost to using bandwidth and UUNET had to use
> account for its usage.
>
> Some other ISPs were/are in a different business model --
> they owned their
> fiber runs, outright, and the question for them was whether to put run
> ATM over that fiber, and subdivide the bandwidth of a single waveband,
> or light two wavebands (one voice/one IP). I've seen the
> marginal cost
> analysis for that kind of decision, and it often favors two wavebands.
>
> Craig
>
