Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:46:09 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: louie@TransSys.COM (Louis A. Mamakos) Cc: terry@lambert.org, alk@Think.COM, hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: hackers-digest V1 #986 Message-ID: <199603181746.KAA21733@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199603172353.SAA12163@wa3ymh.transsys.com> from "Louis A. Mamakos" at Mar 17, 96 06:53:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Of course, this is orthoginal to terminating T1 leased lines from > customer locations; some of them want their very own port from their > premise to "mine", which isn't "shared". You can fix part of the > problem space, but not all with one solution. Thus, the extreme > interest in directly terminating M13 framed DS3 circuits carrying 28 > T1 circuits. You have to have two clouds. You sell overcommit in the first, and you don't overcommit the second. At a 50% load, it costs on the order of twice as much for the committed rate. This assumes all common costs (hardware, installation, lines, etc.) have been subtracted out. For a 50% load on an overcommit, the cost is on the order of $60/month or less if you T1 from, say, Alternet or some other T1 provider into a local cloud and then charge customers a monthly flat rate to end-point; US West is on the order of $260/month for a T1 cloud connection. The customers pay the $80/month for the 56k cloud connections at their sites, making it $5/month for your T1 cloud connection for an overcommited cloud or $10/month if you don't overcommit. Leaves $1300/month for your feed, with 0 wire costs. A bit lower than the $220/month that Internet Direct is charging for 56k endpointing in their cloud, or the $300/month US West's partner charges. > The real interesting case is the 4-10 Mb/s customer access speed, and > how you aggregate/terminate those connections. Multi-T1 IMUXed? > SMDS? ATM? Who knows? The economics of these various solutions are > very interesting to ponder, analyze and/or take/make bets on. 8-). I bet *against* ATM. Leaky-bucket is OK for voice, and can be OK for video, assuming Cell animation with scene refresh. But it rots out for data, which *must* get there *eventually*. I have yet to see a working "source quench" without specialized hardware... besides, with the number of audit records that would have be generated, they'd be in the same boat as FR: no way to bill connect time. Not that that is a bad thing. 8-). > Sorry for the diversion; this is pretty far afield from FreeBSD, 'cept > that I run it on my machine and it works pretty good. No it isn't; it bears on what is a profitable use of time for drivers, protocol stacks, and the ability to use FreeBSD for ISP services based on communications throughput. Is UUNET still using those Sequent MP boxes? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603181746.KAA21733>