long distance gigabit ethernet

Fri Mar 22 17:26:20 UTC 2002

	The cost of the GE modules that are
capable of doing this are much lower
than oc48 type interfaces for a router.

	If someone is building a cheap network
(see rfc1925) it may not be their first
choice to do so but what is forced
upon them.

	- jared

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:19:21AM -0800, Jon Mansey wrote:
> 
> Sorry if this is a naive question, but why would you want to do layer 2 
> over WAN distances anyways? Whats wrong with good old SONET, IP and 
> routing? Do you have non-IP protocols to haul?
> 
> jm
> 
> On Friday, March 22, 2002, at 09:02 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> 
> >
> >On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:54:05AM -0500, Greg Pendergrass wrote:
> >>
> >>Absolutely right, I don't care what's in between as long as I have GigE 
> >>at
> >>the end. Other options include using wave (too expensive), or ethernet 
> >>over
> >>MPLS (worth considering although latency may be too high for longer that
> >>1000 miles).
> >
> >Why would latency be too high? Just talk to one of the carriers who do
> >everything over MPLS, I'm sure they're more then interested in selling
> >some kind of "VPN services" (well someone in the company is at any rate,
> >most sales people would be flatly stumped and are more concerned with
> >trying to keep their jobs than finding you cheap longhaul anyways).
> >
> >You might want to try isp-bandwidth, it's a list more suited for finding
> >specific services you can buy and specific sales weenies who will try and
> >sell it to you. I know I've seen the GigE long-haul transport subject come
> >up a couple time there...
> >
> >--
> >Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> >PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared at puck.nether.net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.