[53479] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PAIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (fkittred@gwi.net)
Fri Nov 15 15:32:06 2002
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: fkittred@gwi.net, nanog@merit.edu
From: fkittred@gwi.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:37:08 EST."
<200211151937.gAFJb8Eu002062@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:31:33 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:37:08 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> > relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher
> > than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a
> > simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
>
> OK. I'll bite. What do you define as a "cheap" router, and just as
> important, what counts as a "fat" pipe where you are?
Cheap is defined as the undepreciated Ciscos that UUnet threw out when
the lyin' backbone engineers sold management the MPLS bill-of-goods in
the late nineties.
[ Why buy Juniper when you can get second-hand Cisco gear for almost
free? ]
Fat is 4 OC3s for uplinks at ~$200 per megabit and gigabit for
internal at about $40 per fiber mile per month. This is consumer
service in Northern New England. At those prices, it is far cheaper
to "overbuy" than over-complicate. Naturally, in different geographic
areas and different market niches your mileage may vary. Or at least
offer an excuse to ignore me.
> You didn't choose the well-known router line from the well-known
> vendor(*) that handles line-speed packets, as long as you don't even
> whisper "ingress filtering" within it's hearing, did you?
Whispering is not exactly my style.
regards,
fletcher
