[73214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Deepak Jain)
Mon Aug 16 19:33:29 2004
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 19:31:19 -0400
From: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
To: "Vincent J. Bono" <vbono@vinny.org>
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <048a01c483e6$29914700$5c80ba8c@VINDESKTOP>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> rabbit. ;-) Now excuse me while I soak my hands in bleach for having typed
I'd hate to hear what you have to do if you read that out loud. :)
Just to be on-topic:
I think the question of what equipment the network is running for the
purposes of a customer savvy enough to know the difference between a
12000 network or a 7xxx network or what-have-you, would be able to
mitigate a vast many of these concerns by being multihomed correctly.
Such a customer would be able to see significant cost improvements and
not see much in the way of penalties -- e.g. reconvergence issues. Two
pieces of equipment with low MTBFs may exceed a single piece of
equipment with a high MTBF's availability overall.
On-topic, but slightly different:
Other than packet buffer depths and some theoretical ACL limits, is
there any reason why a 7600 network would be worse than a 12000 built
one? MTBF, reconvergence and other issues should all be pretty nice and
like others have mentioned packet buffers are not necessarily a good
thing <tm>. Throughput-wise, a 7600 should be able to hold its own
against a 12000 provided we are talking about 40Gb/s blades and SUP720s.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
