[73227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Tue Aug 17 00:44:47 2004
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 06:41:53 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <412143C7.1040105@ai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
> 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.
I've had this discussion a few times with people working at cisco. The
answers I usually get has to do with how well it handles overload, ie what
happens when ports go full.
If you want to be able to do single TCP streams at 5 gigabit/s over your
long-haul 10gig network that is already carrying a lot of traffic, you
need deep packet buffers. If your fastest customer is less than 1gig and
your network is 10gig, you do not.
So, if I were to provision a transatlantic line that cost me a lot of
money, I would use a GSR or a juniper. If I were to provision a 80km dark
fiber between two places where I already own 24 pairs, there is a wide
choice in equipment.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
