DACS vendor (additional details)

Thu Sep 23 19:51:50 UTC 1999

Peter,

A simpler solution which would require less space, power, money, wire pairs, 
and administration for your group:

1) Provision a few Channelized DS3s into your LEC network
2) Install Channelized DS3 into your router
3) Let the LEC be responsible for owning/managing the DACS, and provisioning 
the FT1s/T1s onto the T1s within the channelized DS3s.

You'll save the space and power normally required for banks of T1 CSUs and 
the DACS, and you won't need to manage the crossconnects for the DACS.

Circuit-wise, it should cost you less to provision your T1s into your 
facility via a few DS3s rather than fifty T1s, and you won't eat up your 
incoming telco wire facilities quickly.

>From: Peter Polasek <pete at cobra.brass.com>
>To: Richard Newcomb <rnewcomb at pathone.net>
>CC: Peter Polasek <pete at cobra.brass.com>, nanog at merit.edu,Derrick Bishop 
><derrick at cobra.brass.com>
>Subject: Re: DACS vendor (additional details)
>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 10:05:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>
>On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Richard Newcomb wrote:
>
> > Peter,
> >
> > What is your configuration need, and capacity(payload) requirement
> > regarding bandwidth.  Also, one would need to understand how many
> > DS0's (zeros) per DS1 you wish to split, and if any of them will
> > need to be paired, as in dual channel ISDN.
> >
> > Richard Newcomb
>
>Richard,
>
>Thanks for your response.  I should have provided more details in
>my message.  I am CC'ing this response to the group so that these
>details are clear.  I have already received several useful responses
>and will issue a summary when the message frequency drops.
>
>We will be splitting T1's into 128's, 256's, ... (not 56Kb lines
>because the lower bandwidth lines have 56Kb local loops).  The T1
>lines would typically be split into a maximum of eight various
>speed ports (128-512, occasionally 56, but not typically).  I am
>assuming that products exist to split directly into a 256Kb without
>requiring that multiple 56's to be bundled, but this may not be the
>case (I would appreciate clarification on this point).  We may
>subsequently use it for 56K lines, so a chassis that supports both
>8-way and 24-way cards is helpful.  Approximately 50 T1's are currently
>candidates for splitting to lower bandwidth.  Our preference is to use
>multiple small capacity DACS rather than larger 'megaDACs' to minimize
>the impact of a chassis failure.  We will have at least one unpopulated
>hot spare in each location.
>
>Thanks,
>Pete
>
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > We are considering using Digital Access Cross Connect units (DACS)
> > to split T1 local loops into fractional T channels.  Given that
> > our current knowledge of DACS does not extend significantly beyond
> > the ability to spell the acronym, I am soliciting advice from the
> > network group for recommended hardware vendors.  Cost is not an
> > object, we are primarily concerned with choosing the 'industry
> > standard' manufacturer with the highest reliability and knowledgeable
> > technical support.  Please share your experiences (positive or
> > negative) with DACS equipment.  In an effort to minimize traffic on
> > the NANOG list, I request that responses be sent to my e-mail address
> > and I will submit a summary when all the votes are in.  The vendors
> > under consideration now are Adtran, Eastern Research, StarDAX, and
> > Fisher Price (we have some reservations about the latter product).
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Peter Polasek
> > pete at brass.com
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com