[67963] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Thu Feb 26 13:05:58 2004
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:05:03 -0800 (PST)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>, Michael.Dillon@radianz.com
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20040226174742.GA12758@vijaygill.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--- vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com> wrote:
> How would you know this? Historically, the cutting
> edge technology
> has always gone into the large cores first because
> they are the
> ones pushing the bleeding edge in terms of capacity,
> power, and
> routing.
>
> /vijay
I'm not sure that I'd agree with that statement: most
of the large providers with whom I'm familiar tend to
be relatively conservative with regard to new
technology deployments, for a couple of reasons:
1) their backbones currently "work" - changing them
into something which may or may not "work better" is a
non-trivial operation, and risks the network.
2) they have an installed base of customers who are
living with existing functionality - this goes back to
reason 1 - unless there is money to be made, nobody
wants to deploy anything.
3) It makes more sense to deploy a new box at the
edge, and eventually permit it to migrate to the core
after it's been thoroughly proven - the IP model has
features living on the edges of the network, while
capacity lives in the core. If you have 3 high-cap
boxes in the core, it's probably easier to add a
fourth than it is to rip the three out and replace
them with two higher-cap boxes.
4) existing management infrastructure permits the
management of existing boxes - it's easier to deploy
an all-new network than it is to upgrade from one
technology/platform to another.
-David Barak
-Fully RFC 1925 Compliant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
