Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > muxing T1's vs DS-3

Reply
Thread Tools

muxing T1's vs DS-3

 
 
P.Schuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2007
what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3

What about the copper vs fiber issue....
if we only have copper avail going into our facility.

PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?

tnx -


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2007
"P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
> into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
> when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3


If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition your
PVCs down different pipes.

An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
utilisation of all the pipes.

MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
site) - but you need fibre access for it.

You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco who
allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
links and present it as Ethernet.

Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
equipped mast.

Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get fibre
installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
>
> What about the copper vs fiber issue....
> if we only have copper avail going into our facility.


if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
>
> PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
> and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?


you could always start one
>
> tnx -

--
Regards

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
P.Schuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2007
tnx for the info -
I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
using the Datalink ? mux.

BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
and offer the service.

SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
that is offered from the carrier,
and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.

We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
and for a new fiber run,
they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
to even get to the physical building entrance...


"stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3

>
> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition your
> PVCs down different pipes.
>
> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
> utilisation of all the pipes.
>
> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
> site) - but you need fibre access for it.
>
> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco who
> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
> links and present it as Ethernet.
>
> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
> equipped mast.
>
> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get fibre
> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
> >
> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.

>
> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
> >
> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?

>
> you could always start one
> >
> > tnx -

> --
> Regards
>
> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
John Agosta
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2007
Call Charles Industries in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.
They offer a DS3 mux....

http://www.charlesindustries.com/acq...ltiplexers.htm

-ja





"P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ii%9i.11483$(E-Mail Removed) et...
> tnx for the info -
> I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
> We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
> using the Datalink ? mux.
>
> BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
> and offer the service.
>
> SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
> that is offered from the carrier,
> and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.
>
> We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
> and for a new fiber run,
> they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> to even get to the physical building entrance...
>
>
> "stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
>> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
>> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3

>>
>> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
>> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition
>> your
>> PVCs down different pipes.
>>
>> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
>> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
>> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
>> utilisation of all the pipes.
>>
>> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
>> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
>> site) - but you need fibre access for it.
>>
>> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco
>> who
>> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
>> links and present it as Ethernet.
>>
>> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
>> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
>> equipped mast.
>>
>> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get
>> fibre
>> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
>> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
>> >
>> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
>> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.

>>
>> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
>> >
>> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
>> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?

>>
>> you could always start one
>> >
>> > tnx -

>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2007
We use partial DS3. Populate channels as required. Or for INET, upgrade
spead as requried,
Only good if you start out with at least 8 T1 for voice. SCB/AT&T uses the
MX2800 on the CPE side for the Mux t1 used for Voice/Data.
For Inet they just install a router with DS3. Then charge for bandwidth as
ordered..

Assuming your entrance has some coax available.

If you are cocerned with only data muxing using T1's to transport for the
purpose of establing higher spead internet then all the major mfr have IMA
cards for their routers to inverse multiplex T1s. Cisco's IMA works well.
Not sure about Nortel IMA cards. The previous statement of ATM cell
overhead applies.

Chris



"P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ii%9i.11483$(E-Mail Removed) et...
> tnx for the info -
> I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
> We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
> using the Datalink ? mux.
>
> BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
> and offer the service.
>
> SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
> that is offered from the carrier,
> and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.
>
> We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
> and for a new fiber run,
> they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> to even get to the physical building entrance...
>
>
> "stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
>> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
>> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3

>>
>> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
>> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition
>> your
>> PVCs down different pipes.
>>
>> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
>> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
>> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
>> utilisation of all the pipes.
>>
>> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
>> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
>> site) - but you need fibre access for it.
>>
>> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco
>> who
>> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
>> links and present it as Ethernet.
>>
>> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
>> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
>> equipped mast.
>>
>> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get
>> fibre
>> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
>> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
>> >
>> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
>> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.

>>
>> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
>> >
>> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
>> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?

>>
>> you could always start one
>> >
>> > tnx -

>> --
>> Regards
>>
>> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
P.Schuman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2007
tnx - I'll take at look at the various router vendors for Inverse Muxing
cards...
what model is the Cisco IMA ?? and what model is the Nortel IMA ??

BTW - this is our situation....
> We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full of

twisted pair,
> and for a new fiber run,
> they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> to even get to the physical building entrance...


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gL0ai.7229$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> We use partial DS3. Populate channels as required. Or for INET, upgrade
> spead as requried,
> Only good if you start out with at least 8 T1 for voice. SCB/AT&T uses the
> MX2800 on the CPE side for the Mux t1 used for Voice/Data.
> For Inet they just install a router with DS3. Then charge for bandwidth as
> ordered..
>
> Assuming your entrance has some coax available.
>
> If you are cocerned with only data muxing using T1's to transport for the
> purpose of establing higher spead internet then all the major mfr have IMA
> cards for their routers to inverse multiplex T1s. Cisco's IMA works well.
> Not sure about Nortel IMA cards. The previous statement of ATM cell
> overhead applies.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ii%9i.11483$(E-Mail Removed) et...
> > tnx for the info -
> > I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
> > We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
> > using the Datalink ? mux.
> >
> > BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
> > and offer the service.
> >
> > SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
> > that is offered from the carrier,
> > and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.
> >
> > We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
> > and for a new fiber run,
> > they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> > to even get to the physical building entrance...
> >
> >
> > "stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >> newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> >> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
> >> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
> >> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3
> >>
> >> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
> >> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition
> >> your
> >> PVCs down different pipes.
> >>
> >> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
> >> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
> >> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
> >> utilisation of all the pipes.
> >>
> >> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
> >> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
> >> site) - but you need fibre access for it.
> >>
> >> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco
> >> who
> >> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
> >> links and present it as Ethernet.
> >>
> >> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
> >> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
> >> equipped mast.
> >>
> >> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get
> >> fibre
> >> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
> >> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
> >> >
> >> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
> >> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.
> >>
> >> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
> >> >
> >> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
> >> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?
> >>
> >> you could always start one
> >> >
> >> > tnx -
> >> --
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
> >>
> >>

> >
> >

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
MattG
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2007
On Jun 7, 7:25 pm, "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> tnx - I'll take at look at the various router vendors for Inverse Muxing
> cards...
> what model is the Cisco IMA ?? and what model is the Nortel IMA ??
>
> BTW - this is our situation....
>
> > We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full of

> twisted pair,
> > and for a new fiber run,
> > they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> > to even get to the physical building entrance...

> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:gL0ai.7229$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
>
>
> > We use partial DS3. Populate channels as required. Or for INET, upgrade
> > spead as requried,
> > Only good if you start out with at least 8 T1 for voice. SCB/AT&T uses the
> > MX2800 on the CPE side for the Mux t1 used for Voice/Data.
> > For Inet they just install a router with DS3. Then charge for bandwidth as
> > ordered..

>
> > Assuming your entrance has some coax available.

>
> > If you are cocerned with only data muxing using T1's to transport for the
> > purpose of establing higher spead internet then all the major mfr have IMA
> > cards for their routers to inverse multiplex T1s. Cisco's IMA works well.
> > Not sure about Nortel IMA cards. The previous statement of ATM cell
> > overhead applies.

>
> > Chris

>
> > "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:ii%9i.11483$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> > > tnx for the info -
> > > I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
> > > We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
> > > using the Datalink ? mux.

>
> > > BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
> > > and offer the service.

>
> > > SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
> > > that is offered from the carrier,
> > > and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.

>
> > > We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
> > > and for a new fiber run,
> > > they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
> > > to even get to the physical building entrance...

>
> > > "stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > >>newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed) ...
> > >> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
> > >> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
> > >> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3

>
> > >> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
> > >> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition
> > >> your
> > >> PVCs down different pipes.

>
> > >> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
> > >> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to cell
> > >> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
> > >> utilisation of all the pipes.

>
> > >> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of in
> > >> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at your
> > >> site) - but you need fibre access for it.

>
> > >> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a telco
> > >> who
> > >> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple SDSL
> > >> links and present it as Ethernet.

>
> > >> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
> > >> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to an
> > >> equipped mast.

>
> > >> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get
> > >> fibre
> > >> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) - and
> > >> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.

>
> > >> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
> > >> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.

>
> > >> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.

>
> > >> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
> > >> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?

>
> > >> you could always start one

>
> > >> > tnx -
> > >> --
> > >> Regards

>
> > >> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -



i worked in a situation like this once. we were building our MPLS
network, and both large office locations we needed at least 6 megabits
to the MPLS network. We could not get DS3's into either building w/o
the carrier making us pay for the installation of the DS3 (long
story). We were able to with AT&T to use MLPPP to bond 4 T1's
together and connect to their MPLS cloud. At the time, November 2005
they were only allowing certain companies to do this, but if you went
to AT&T and pushed them, they will likely do the MPLS over MLPPP due
to your extranous situation.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott Perry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2007
> i worked in a situation like this once. we were building our MPLS
> network, and both large office locations we needed at least 6 megabits
> to the MPLS network. We could not get DS3's into either building w/o
> the carrier making us pay for the installation of the DS3 (long
> story). We were able to with AT&T to use MLPPP to bond 4 T1's
> together and connect to their MPLS cloud. At the time, November 2005
> they were only allowing certain companies to do this, but if you went
> to AT&T and pushed them, they will likely do the MPLS over MLPPP due
> to your extranous situation.
>


2 Channelized T1/PRI ports on a WIC

interface Multilink1
description *** Dual DS-1 (T1) to Telco ***
ip address (your IP address) 255.255.255.252
ip access-group multilink1_in in
ip access-group multilink1_out out
no cdp enable
ppp multilink
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface Serial0/0/0:0
description *** (this is a great place to put your circuit ID) ***
bandwidth 1544
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface Serial0/0/1:0
description *** (this is a great place to put your circuit ID) ***
bandwidth 1544
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
ppp multilink group 1

 
Reply With Quote
 
stephen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2007
"Scott Perry" <scottperry@aciscocompany> wrote in message
news:4669b1ef$0$21251$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> i worked in a situation like this once. we were building our MPLS
> network, and both large office locations we needed at least 6 megabits
> to the MPLS network. We could not get DS3's into either building w/o
> the carrier making us pay for the installation of the DS3 (long
> story). We were able to with AT&T to use MLPPP to bond 4 T1's
> together and connect to their MPLS cloud. At the time, November 2005
> they were only allowing certain companies to do this, but if you went
> to AT&T and pushed them, they will likely do the MPLS over MLPPP due
> to your extranous situation.
>


2 Channelized T1/PRI ports on a WIC

interface Multilink1
description *** Dual DS-1 (T1) to Telco ***
ip address (your IP address) 255.255.255.252
ip access-group multilink1_in in
ip access-group multilink1_out out
no cdp enable
ppp multilink
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface Serial0/0/0:0
description *** (this is a great place to put your circuit ID) ***
bandwidth 1544
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
ppp multilink group 1
!
interface Serial0/0/1:0
description *** (this is a great place to put your circuit ID) ***
bandwidth 1544
no ip address
encapsulation ppp
no fair-queue
ppp multilink group 1

last time i checked a cisco 28xx or 38xx could take the AIM-IMA card - this
supports IMA on up to 4 links - the bigger routers can take 2 AIMs, but not
sure if 2 IMA cards is going to work.

Or if you need 1 bigger block of circuits, then a 7200 can take an 8 port T1
IMA card, and you can have multiple cards, although each card supports a
different ATM interface.

1 thing i mentioned that you skipped past - if you need lots of PVCs to
different remote sites, then each PVC may not need to go over 1.5 Mbps.

If so, just use separate T1s and spread the PVCs across them to balance the
load.
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl


 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2007
For the Cisco the Card is the:
NM-8T1-IMA
8-port T1 ATM Network Module with IMA
New should be no more than $3500. Used, less than that.

They MSRP is about $5062

The card will fit into a router chassis. If you ware needing both ends then
you will need to purchase two cards, and two routers.



"P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:El1ai.12986$(E-Mail Removed) et...
> tnx - I'll take at look at the various router vendors for Inverse Muxing
> cards...
> what model is the Cisco IMA ?? and what model is the Nortel IMA ??
>
> BTW - this is our situation....
>> We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full of

> twisted pair,
>> and for a new fiber run,
>> they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
>> to even get to the physical building entrance...

>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:gL0ai.7229$(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> We use partial DS3. Populate channels as required. Or for INET,
>> upgrade
>> spead as requried,
>> Only good if you start out with at least 8 T1 for voice. SCB/AT&T uses
>> the
>> MX2800 on the CPE side for the Mux t1 used for Voice/Data.
>> For Inet they just install a router with DS3. Then charge for bandwidth
>> as
>> ordered..
>>
>> Assuming your entrance has some coax available.
>>
>> If you are cocerned with only data muxing using T1's to transport for
>> the
>> purpose of establing higher spead internet then all the major mfr have
>> IMA
>> cards for their routers to inverse multiplex T1s. Cisco's IMA works
>> well.
>> Not sure about Nortel IMA cards. The previous statement of ATM cell
>> overhead applies.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ii%9i.11483$(E-Mail Removed) et...
>> > tnx for the info -
>> > I guess I'm looking at how to accomplish the N*T1 physically ?
>> > We had previously used Sprint - and they offered muxing T1's
>> > using the Datalink ? mux.
>> >
>> > BUT - that required the carrier to have one on their end,
>> > and offer the service.
>> >
>> > SO - just checking to see what's around (in the US)
>> > that is offered from the carrier,
>> > and what hardware is required to performing the muxing function.
>> >
>> > We have a location where the 40 year old telco conduit is totally full,
>> > and for a new fiber run,
>> > they need to cut across the street, some land, parking areas, etc
>> > to even get to the physical building entrance...
>> >
>> >
>> > "stephen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > newsZ_9i.16040$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >> "P.Schuman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> newspZ9i.11456$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> >> > what options are available from the carriers for the local loop
>> >> > into either an old Frame or new MPLS network
>> >> > when we need more than a single T1, but less than a DS-3
>> >>
>> >> If you have to get into a F/relay cloud then the best you can do is
>> >> probably N * T1 - either treat them as a line group or just partition
>> >> your
>> >> PVCs down different pipes.
>> >>
>> >> An alternative that was popular in Europe was to use IMA to aggregate
>> >> several E1s into a bigger logical ATM pipe - you lose maybe 15% to
>> >> cell
>> >> overheads, but the balancing happens per cell, so you get very good
>> >> utilisation of all the pipes.
>> >>
>> >> MPLS is the way to go for more choices - uk fix for the same kind of
>> >> in
>> >> between speeds is 10 Mbps Ethernet as a tail (or SDH on a CPE mux at
>> >> your
>> >> site) - but you need fibre access for it.
>> >>
>> >> You can get higher speed than T1 on ADSL / SDSL, and maybe find a
>> >> telco
>> >> who
>> >> allows bonding? Some of the systems (pairgain?) will bond multiple
>> >> SDSL
>> >> links and present it as Ethernet.
>> >>
>> >> Finally - work supports Ethernet over microwave as a tail at up to 100
>> >> Mbps - but you need a carrier that supports it, and line of sight to
>> >> an
>> >> equipped mast.
>> >>
>> >> Given the costs for microwave, dishes et al it may be cheaper to get
>> >> fibre
>> >> installed anyway (depending on how far you are from a useable duct) -
>> >> and
>> >> the fibre will give you a way to get to 1 Gbps and higher.
>> >> >
>> >> > What about the copper vs fiber issue....
>> >> > if we only have copper avail going into our facility.
>> >>
>> >> if you can get fibre and it is reasonable cost, then do it.
>> >> >
>> >> > PS - any other newsgroups where this non-specific hardware vendor,
>> >> > and more carrier oriented discussions might take place ?
>> >>
>> >> you could always start one
>> >> >
>> >> > tnx -
>> >> --
>> >> Regards
>> >>
>> >> (E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >

>>
>>

>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
muxing T1's vs DS-3 P.Schuman VOIP 9 06-09-2007 01:02 AM
clocking muxing, plz throw some light sudeepts@gmail.com VHDL 1 02-23-2006 06:43 PM
MPEG2 PS stream Muxing sumanta DVD Video 0 09-28-2005 11:41 AM
Address muxing from multiple sources Salman Sheikh VHDL 0 08-28-2003 07:25 PM



Advertisments