I don't think it's really offtopic.
If you have a good firewall already you shouldn't need the
router/firewall functionality of the Cisco thing the provider is
suggesting. Their suggestion is probably based on the assumption that
the customer has nothing already and is ignorant.
Unless the connection comes in from the street as Ethernet you'll need
some kind of modem that connects to the fibre on the street and gives
you an RJ45 to plug into. Perhaps their suggested expensive Cisco model
has the modem already built in. If you get your own suitable modem you
might have to fight the provider for the setup details.
How long would it take to switch from the cheap to the expensive plan?
You could start on the cheap one and test it out, if it's too congested
switch up. Or get both plans and connections for a month or two so you
have an immediate fallback. Given the relative costs the cheaper plan
looks almost irrelevant.
> The much higher speeds and lower price are
> definitely enticing but we couldn't operate if speeds fell below 30 to
> 50 Mbps.
Your contract guarantees you only 30Mbps, so doesn't guarantee you
remaining operational either if you need 50Mbps.
http://volker.top.geek.nz/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
Linux-users mailing list