Maybe I should add that I'm looking at ATM WAN switches and
several-thousand-mile hauls. Are ATM WAN switches more sensitive? Can
telcos clean up the noise on such a long haul as opposed to
several-hundred-mile hauls. My counters on the routers for the 'short'
haul lines are indeed zero.
If you can see errors, put on yor camo gear. Lines, international
or otherwise, should run clean, whatever equipment is
connected so long as it's correctly configured. Like 0 errors.
The differentiators between routes and telcos are (a) how often
you get a problem, and (b) how quickly it gets fixed
(i.e. there shouldn't be differences in quiescent BER - though
route, technology and organization competence may well affect
MTBF, MTTR, Availability etc.)
> Maybe I should add that I'm looking at ATM WAN switches and
> several-thousand-mile hauls. Are ATM WAN switches more sensitive? Can
> telcos clean up the noise on such a long haul as opposed to
> several-hundred-mile hauls. My counters on the routers for the 'short'
> haul lines are indeed zero.
If you can see errors, put on yor camo gear. Lines, international
or otherwise, should run clean, whatever equipment is
connected so long as it's correctly configured. Like 0 errors.
Well, do be careful.
Most carries have "performance objectives" which they adhere to,
and they specify some number of errored seconds per day per circuit,
and those numbers may vary based on route-milage.
Unfortunately I think most of those numbers are covered under NDAs,
but I can safely say that 1 errored second/day would be well
under the criteria and 1,000 would be well over, and anything in
between depends on your carrier and route miles, etc., etc.
--jhawk