RE: Broken Internet?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

> From: Adam Rothschild [mailto:asr () latency net]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:23 AM
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 02:34:35AM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> > > DSL has always been a cheap, semi-reliable solution for people
> > > that didn't want to pay the money for a dedicated circuit.
>
> This, I agree with.
>
> > DSL behaves like a dedicated circuit
>
> Dedicated in what sense?  "Always up" nature?  Aggregation hierarchy /
> topology?  Bandwidth, considering your provider might be _losing_
> money with transit/ops/etc costs factored in, if you're using it al
> full line rate 24x7?

Well, all of the above, except that there is no way to tell if your upstream
is losing money or not. Not if their market-communications folks know what
they're doing and they're privately-held.

> > Additionally, you don't have to tune the link and it doesn't need to
> > be hand-rebooted when the CSU/DSU drops (all the things they don't
> > tell you about T1's).
>
> What circuit-level fine tuning and rebooting do you speak of?  Is the
> telco running Microsoft DACS Server(TM) in the CO? ;)

I'm speaking from having spent many nights and week-ends waiting for the
telco to bring the line back up, after my CSU lost power/went down/died/etc.
That's why we went with DSL (besides straight cost). Granted, after initial
build, this didn't happen. Mainly, because the CSU never went down again.

> But yeah, putting all your eggs in one basket could make for a nice
> single point of failure.  Or calculated risk.  Your call...

That's my point, small shops don't have much choice. Typical Inet start-ups
are cases where headcount is far less than server count. Granted, most of
the H/W is in a co-lo.

<sigh> You guys just don't want to allow a small business to run their own
data center, do you?
Can't y'all understand that there are serious business reasons for a company
to do so?