Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two,
for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken?
With a backup FDDI ring?
And I assume, spare power supplies and processors?
Avi
Which begs a question: why use a Giga-switch at all?
With the head of line blocking feature/problem and scalability only to
full duplex 100 mbps is a Gigaswitch something that should be used in
a next generation NAP?
I'm not suggesting it's intended to be the next generation NAP, but
you'd think that they would want to use the latest switches and
technology available, rather than continue down the FDDI road.
Darin
200 mbps full duplex, and I think it is fine for now. Come on, MAE-NewYork
that just opened started with only a 10 meg catlyst. I started with a
gigaswitch. No, I don't think the gigaswitch will be in the next
generation NAP, but it is a good start. We are looking at other options
now for the future.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
} Which begs a question: why use a Giga-switch at all?
}
} With the head of line blocking feature/problem and scalability only to
} full duplex 100 mbps is a Gigaswitch something that should be used in a
} next generation NAP?
Nathan mentioned that MFS has started their new MAEs with a Catalyst or
shared FDDI ring. Perhaps that has something to do with inital demand.
An example of this is MAE-Houston or MAE-LA, neither of which presently
require the bandwidth a Gigaswitch delivers. MFS has been sticking to the
plan of adding hardware and/or capacity based on demand and traffic stats.
I think the Atlanta NAP, while probably a good idea, won't run into the
head of line blocking problem in the extremely near future. Looking at
the growth pattern of other exchange points leads me to believe this.
} I'm not suggesting it's intended to be the next generation NAP, but
} you'd think that they would want to use the latest switches and
} technology available, rather than continue down the FDDI road.
What else would you suggest? Gigabit Ethernet hasn't been standardized
yet, Cisco doesn't make a HIPPI interface, and some people prefer to not
use ATM. FDDI has proven to very reliable, etc. Having ISPs continue to
grow egress bandwidth has shown to be a bigger problem than the switch
fabric at the larger exchange points.
-jh-
Of course, I was half-joking, but why only one Gigaswitch? Why not two,
> for redundancy, as is implemented at Pennsauken?
>
> With a backup FDDI ring?
> And I assume, spare power supplies and processors?
Which begs a question: why use a Giga-switch at all?
With the head of line blocking feature/problem and scalability only to
full duplex 100 mbps is a Gigaswitch something that should be used in
a next generation NAP?
I'm not suggesting it's intended to be the next generation NAP, but
you'd think that they would want to use the latest switches and
technology available, rather than continue down the FDDI road.
I think Nathan is trying to use proven technology that works rather
than feeling wind whistling between his toes as they hang over the
bleeding edge.
---Rob