North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Extending a MAE connection ...
On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > Here is a question.. a strange one, no less. > > Is it feasible to do this: > > WASHINGTON DC NEW YORK CITY > | B R I D G E | > MAE -- 100 Mb/s -- | Cisco | -DS3- | Cisco | -- FDDI or -- (multiple > East FDDI | 4700M | | 4700M | 100Base T peers) > giga Switch You may want to go with 7500s, I think the 4700s will have a hard time when the ds3 starts to fill up. > Why? here's why. > > Several folks in the same building in NYC want to connect to MAE-East. > But, we all don't want T1's or 10 Meg HLI to MAE-East, but DS3. So, this > allows us all to connect to the MAE, peer directly with others without an > intermediary ASN, and we can split the cost of the routers and the DS3. > > I know (at least, I can't think of any reason it can't be done) that is > can be done. The unanswered questions are: > > 1) Will MFS allow us to connect multiple Peers on the same FDDI port (from > thier webpage, it looks like it, but I am not sure). They would 12 months ago, when I wanted to do it. > 2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? Strange, but I don't think it is "bad". When I needed my Ameritech NAP connection up ASAP and did not have a space for it. I had Ameritech cross connect my NAP DS3 to Wolrdcom and extended it to ATL. People thought it was odd to have 20 ms delay to a NAP connection, but it worked. > 3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less > attractive (politically) ? Could be, I think it will depend on how you educate your users. If you get a lot of people that are defaulting to someone or generally screwing things up then yes. If you make sure they have a clue, then I don't think it would be a big deal. > Thanks for any input on this. If there is anything I am missing, please > slap me. Thanks. >