🚀 go-pugleaf

 Vivien Milat wrote in article <3392A676.2A444D31@storm.ca>...
>Because iSTAR probably has more bandwidth to the U.S. As you said above,
>the connection to Sprint (based on the name) is only a T3... The Wave
>most like needs more bandwidth.
So what do you think Istar's connection is?  It is only a T3 as well.

>> 500kbps to the desktop is a nice technology; hopefully Wave implements
>> the backbone to support it.

Remember that this is not 100% true.  500 kbps is not to the desktop.  This
bandwidth is to the entire block/neighborhood or whatever the segment is. 
The 500 kbps is then shared amongst all users in that block.

Frank

Frank Kahle wrote:
> 
> >> 500kbps to the desktop is a nice technology; hopefully Wave implements
> >> the backbone to support it.
> 
> Remember that this is not 100% true.  500 kbps is not to the desktop.  This
> bandwidth is to the entire block/neighborhood or whatever the segment is.
> The 500 kbps is then shared amongst all users in that block.

Well, until this xDSL vs cable argument came along, no one was telling
people with their PC's hooked to a corporate ethernet that "your don't
really have 10Mbit to the desktop"  (unless you count the tokenring
guys)

As things stand now in town, I think the *best* an ISP could do for
bandwith would be dual homed RNS and UUNet.  Reason; UUnet has lots
of good connections, and at least on the Canadian side has a reputation
for running a good network.  RNS because they seem to be the only one
with CA*Net peering (otherwise going through MCI->CA*Net is quite
painful)

-Ralph

--
Ralph Doncaster, Doncaster Consulting Inc   email: ralph@doncaster.on.ca
2816 Richmond Rd. Ottawa, ON  K2B 6S5       ph:(613)829-6597

Frank Kahle wrote:
> 
>  Vivien Milat wrote in article <3392A676.2A444D31@storm.ca>...
> >Because iSTAR probably has more bandwidth to the U.S. As you said above,
> >the connection to Sprint (based on the name) is only a T3... The Wave
> >most like needs more bandwidth.
> So what do you think Istar's connection is?  It is only a T3 as well.
Well, at least iSTAR has more than one T3... I (after tracerouting like
mad), could find three:
WestOrange -> Montreal
Seattle -> Toronto
Seattle -> Vancouver
That's still more than just one T3 like RNS has.

Vivien
-- 
Vivien Milat
milat@storm.ca
vmilat@lisgar.edu.on.ca
Visit my updated home page at: www.storm.ca/~milat/
Author of Measurement Converter for Windows: www.storm.ca/~milat/mconv/

Ralph Doncaster (Ralph@doncaster.on.nospam.ca) wrote:

: Well, until this xDSL vs cable argument came along, no one was telling
: people with their PC's hooked to a corporate ethernet that "your don't
: really have 10Mbit to the desktop"  (unless you count the tokenring
: guys)

Those of us with switches and routers in place do :)  (Well 100 but same
idea...)

--
High-Speed Reliable Internet Access Services, Since December 20th, 1993
613-723-6624 * Access Services * Leased Line Access * Web Hosting * MORE
Honda CBR900RR, Tecnomagnesio Rims, Metzler Tyres, Ohlins & Lindemann

 Ralph Doncaster wrote in article <339380B3.7541F6AB@doncaster.on.nospam.ca>
...
>Well, until this xDSL vs cable argument came along, no one was telling
>people with their PC's hooked to a corporate ethernet that "your don't
>really have 10Mbit to the desktop"  (unless you count the tokenring
>guys)

Well this seems to be happening all across the xDSL camp as well (checked
out a provider out west who advertising 2 mbits ADSL but only had 1 T1
link).

>
>As things stand now in town, I think the *best* an ISP could do for
>bandwith would be dual homed RNS and UUNet.  Reason; UUnet has lots
>of good connections, and at least on the Canadian side has a reputation
>for running a good network.  RNS because they seem to be the only one
>with CA*Net peering (otherwise going through MCI->CA*Net is quite
>painful)
>

Don't agree with that, IGS is using ONET so we are directly on the ca*NET
network and its very fast for us into the states, Our slowest links are to
IStar.  We are peered to RNS (because of ONET) but the RNS network seems
very sluggish.  We have been talking to RNS for our Vancouver expansion,
but we told them that we are hesitant due to the slow responses on their
network.

Frank

Frank Kahle wrote:
> 
>  Ralph Doncaster wrote in article <339380B3.7541F6AB@doncaster.on.nospam.ca>
> >As things stand now in town, I think the *best* an ISP could do for
> >bandwith would be dual homed RNS and UUNet.  Reason; UUnet has lots
> >of good connections, and at least on the Canadian side has a reputation
> >for running a good network.  RNS because they seem to be the only one
> >with CA*Net peering (otherwise going through MCI->CA*Net is quite
> >painful)
> >
> 
> Don't agree with that, IGS is using ONET so we are directly on the ca*NET
> network and its very fast for us into the states, Our slowest links are to
> IStar.  We are peered to RNS (because of ONET) but the RNS network seems
> very sluggish.  We have been talking to RNS for our Vancouver expansion,
> but we told them that we are hesitant due to the slow responses on their
> network.

I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with your disagreement.
Throughput *may* be OK for modem users, but when I've connected to BGS,
IGS, and Newbridge from another T1 connected server (one on Sprint,
another
on IStar and UUnet), anything into CA*Net using their MCI gateway was
slow.
I have never seen an ftp get more than 40K/sec taking that route, while
I
have seen 175K/s going from Sprint->MCI->Istar (ordinary speeds for that
hop are 50-100K/s)
(See my post "Bell can't support ADSL bandwith" in ott.online for more
details)

-Ralph

--
Ralph Doncaster, Doncaster Consulting Inc   email: ralph@doncaster.on.ca
2816 Richmond Rd. Ottawa, ON  K2B 6S5       ph:(613)829-6597