On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Tom Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >... "Metro Ethernet" ...
I can't comment on the reliability/performance of Cox's services. That really depends on their configuration, plans, infrastructure, clue level, etc. But the way those wide-area-Ethernet schemes generally works is by encapsulating the Ethernet frames in ATM or something similar, and then shipping those around. Fundamentally, on the wire, it's not much different from traditional WAN technologies. Personally, I would still use layer three routing to span such a system. You're usually going to have higher latency on a WAN link than on Ethernet, and that's liable to confuse some protocols (such as Microsoft's). Plus routing lets you more easily configure redundant links, etc. Plus regardless of what the carrier promises, I would still want a firewall/VPN/etc that I control. So, to me, the chief advantage to such schemes is that routers with Ethernet jacks are cheaper than routers with fancy WAN cards. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
