|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 92 16:43:21 PST From: brian@lloyd.com (Brian Lloyd) To: sean@dsl.pitt.edu Cc: com-priv@psi.com, cook@tmn.com In-Reply-To: sean mclinden's message of Sun, 12 Jan 92 17:08:45 -0500 <9201122208.AA10854@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> Reply-To: brian@lloyd.com I was not saying that ANS has a monopoly. Anyone can put in T3 capacity links, including the CIX members. What I was pointing out is that ANS controls a network with T3 bandwidth pretty much throughout (although it has HORRIBLE latency making T1 look not so bad). For the user needing massive capacity (BARRnet has several users who occasionally fill up their T1 pipes into BARRnet's Palo Alto hub where there is 10Mbps connectivity to the NSS) it is nice knowing that the excess capacity is there. That is going to draw users whose capacity requirements are increasing rapidly. The CIX doesn't have that kind of capacity, and very few of the CIX members do either. My previous posting was to point out that the ANS folks were rather foresighted. They have positioned themselves very well from a capacity point of view. I wonder when the CIX or the CIX members are going to catch up? They need to offer an alternative if they hope to woo big users away from ANS. Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Lloyd & Associates Principal and Network Architect 3420 Sudbury Road brian@lloyd.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 voice (916) 676-1147 -or- (415) 725-1392
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |