PAIX

David Diaz techlist at smoton.net
Fri Nov 15 15:08:22 UTC 2002


Anyone that calls me honey is in question.

It's standard, you cant have everything in life. You attempt to 
achieve all three however it's all relative.  You can have a DSL line 
now instead of a T1, it's fast and cheap but most arent as good as a 
T1 and the SLAs arent there right?

Usually you either build your network to one of two designed: Avg 
sustained traffic levels, or Peak traffic levels.

Avg sustained means that during peak times you might have higher 
latency, but that you have not over bought capacity... Peak Traffic 
design means you looked at your max burst levels and bought enough 
capacity etc to handle that load.  The rest of the time you have 
excess capacity, but your QoS is always great.  You will have a 
higher costs basis here.

We all strive for all three, I used to almost try a TDM approach. 
Where I would try and balance business day users, residential users, 
and backup service users on the network.  They used 3 distinct time 
frames during the day.  In this way the network was rarely idle, but 
each type of users peak time was not in conflict with another.

So if you would like to say you can sell me an OC48 at Aleron's (or 
fill in the ISPs name) IP backbone quality, at Cogent's pricing of 
less then $30meg... great...



At 9:55 -0500 11/15/02, fkittred at gwi.net wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500  David Diaz wrote:
>>
>>  People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
>>
>>  Good
>>  Fast
>>  Cheap
>
>Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above.  Sooner
>or later, you will have to compete with someone who believes:
>
>"Good
>  Fast
>  Cheap
>
>we do all three."
>
>When one really knows one's field, it is possible to design simple
>systems.  In the networking world, the qualities simple bring are:
>
>  Good (reliable),
>  Fast,
>  Cheap.
>
>In a field where people think that it is perfectly acceptable to run
>MPLS through a NAT connected via PPP over Ethernet over ATM, it isn't
>harder to be simpler than the competition.
>
>good luck,
>fletcher





More information about the NANOG mailing list