Re: UBR at MAE-East ATM, anyone?

From: Richard Irving (no email)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 13:07:09 EDT

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-

  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
we had a - mess - with it....

  Just my .02


Hosted Email Solutions

Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD