nanog mailing list archives

Re: UBR at MAE-East ATM, anyone?


From: Richard Irving <rirving () onecall net>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:07:09 -0500


Read on, Oh wise one.

"Lauren F. Nowlin" wrote:

Thanks for your update Steve and to Alex for getting the ball rolling.

ONYX would also like to see this change implemented.

The model the AADS team uses is far superior to any other scheme to
'monitor' interactions between peers at the PVC level.  Hands-off full mesh
build is the easiest to activate rapidly without botched PVCs trickling in
one-by-one or stuck in a random queue of a departed employee..
  
  In a large corporation, individualistic details can get lost in 
the broad scope of things. Rate Cap'ing is
wonderful thing, IMHO, as long as you have -adequate- resources to
respond to the individual granularity of the dynamics of the -real-
flows.

  Ahhh... Therein lies the caveat, eh ?

  :\

  The best laid plans of mice and men......

The
PeerMaker method is too human intensive for little to no gain from an
operational sense.  A negative if you can't use the capacity for fear of
artificial caps being exceeded with other peers, which is the case noted
below.

  Great minds..... :) 


Also, I've never understood why PBNAP PVC build requests between two
customers - approved by both customers - have to be sent to PacBell
Marketing for approval...


  Didn't they, in the old days, need to clear "tarriffing rules" out
there ?
Dereg was young....and some states had differing (read complex) regs. I
know
we had a - mess - with it.... 

  Just my .02

   Richard



Current thread: