Extending a MAE connection ...

Craig A. Huegen chuegen at quadrunner.com
Wed Sep 24 14:58:01 UTC 1997

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

==>  WASHINGTON DC                               NEW YORK CITY
==>			|   B R I D G E  |
==>MAE -- 100 Mb/s  -- | Cisco | -DS3- | Cisco | -- FDDI or -- (multiple
==>East 	FDDI        | 4700M |       | 4700M |    100Base T      peers)
==>giga						 Switch


==>1) Will MFS allow us to connect multiple Peers on the same FDDI port (from
==>thier webpage, it looks like it, but I am not sure).

The more germane question here is "will MFS allow us to extend layer 2
across all these devices to provide a multi-access point in NYC?".

==>2) Is there any technical reason that the above is bad? 

Bridging is signficantly more troublesome to troubleshoot.  Additionally,
if these providers love layer 2 so much that they connect their "MAE port" 
into another switch, and have other interconnects using a bridged
environment (yes, I've seen it), getting all the parties to cooperate in
debugging spanning tree problems can be difficult. 

Additionally, if the DS3 between Ciscos is done on an ATM card, keep in
mind that you'll lose close to 30-35% of your traffic because of the ATM
cell tax--you'll probably get a max of 30 Mbps throughput.  If it's
HSSI/HDLC, you shouldn't have many problems.

Also, while translational bridging has been around for a while, you may
experience problems from FDDI->FE.

==>3) Because we do it the way shown above, does that make us look less
==>attractive (politically) ?

It's a creative solution, I'll give you points for that.


More information about the NANOG mailing list