2011/10/19 Jared Mauch <[email protected]> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:58:41PM -0400, Keegan Holley wrote: > > The real question: > > > > > > Are you selling customer links that are near to or equal to the size of > > > your core links(s). > > > > > > > Why would anyone do this on purpose and not upgrade the core? I > understand > > over-subscription but having your edge links the same speed as your core > is > > just asking for trouble. > > Because the core link sizes are the same as the edge sizes. > > This means you have to create duplicate links to haul it through > more > routers vs less. > > > > > Anyone doing 10GE edge or looking at 100GE for customer-facing handoffs > can > > > save significant amounts of money by doing P/PE. While there are > tradeoffs, > > > not having the cumulative cost of a packet being A+B+C and perhaps can > be > > > localized to a single device has value. I'm surprised that Rolland > doesn't > > > see this as an optimization as it would be something the Arbor > equipment > > > could help you optimize. > > > > > > > Not sure how you save money by buying extra routers. That's a pretty > > aggressive discount structure. > > I'm saying buy less routers. > > If your customer is talking to a peer, place them on the > same device. Don't have a 'peering edge' vs 'customer edge'. > > It may make sense to terminate your 'core' links on the same > device as well. It may not. This all depends. The problem here is how > people think about the network. "There must be a core", or "you must > transit a P device". >
Oh... I think we were saying the same thing here. It really depends on the requirements of each individual network. > > > > While some may see these cost savings as inelegant, the idea of a core > will > > > continue to come under these pressures. Keep in mind the fraction of a > > > chassis you must allocate for these edge <-> core links and core <-> > core > > > links. These have real world costs. There's a reason everyone didn't > go > > > out there and load-up on OC768 hardware and just stuck with N*10G. The > > > finances don't work out. > > > > > > > Cards are cheaper than entire routers in most cases especially at N*10 > and > > 40G speeds. Assuming you want chassis based, with redundant control > planes > > and whatever the vendor uses for fabirc blades. I'm not saying everyone > > should throw their core P routers into a dumpster, but I don't see how > > having them saves money. You also have to add the cost of service > contacts, > > power, fingers and eyes to keep them running, etc.. I think people who > need > > separate cores should have them. However, I don't see how P routers save > > money or reduce complexity. > > They don't in many cases. I think you misunderstood my comments. > +1 on the misunderstanding. My apologies. I should be working anyway :) > > - Jared > > -- > Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [email protected] > clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only > mine. > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
