>Some interesting questions....
>
>me personally ....
>
>no-one has talked about restrictions of any sort ( a-la firewall)..so lets
>say there isn`t ....just use 1 of 16 different custom queues ...not really
>an effective tool fir this job but hey.....Design solutions it is ...
>
>I also don`t like the idea about this T1/DSL link stuff...i always advise
>customers to have the same....."if you want to have a SEEMLESS service don`t
>skimp ......all things should be equal".
>obviously it wont be totally seamless as you will have a lot of info going
>across 1 instead of 2 links...but it`s closer than DSL
Seamless can be good or bad. Seamless may make things simpler to
understand, which is good. Seamless also reduces the number of
implementations -- which means you may be creating a somewhat
abstract single point of failure -- a bug in the implementation of
one common or software component.
At the exchange points, for example, there is a conscious effort to
run the route server software on different servers and operating
systems--say a Sparc and an Alpha.
A T1 and DSL, unfortunately, are likely to use the same local loop,
although they will be more diverse once they hit the CO. Much more
attractive, from a fault tolerance standpoint, would be T1 and cable,
or T1 and fixed wireless.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=239&t=195
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
