Actually that is not what I was talking about at all. I was not looking at things from the enterprise standpoint, but rather from a provider standpoint - and specifically from Verizon's standpoint. Verizon lost a lot of voice-switching capacity during 9-11, and while they admittedly and heroically rebuilt most of it quickly, they could have also recovered much of their functionality if they had relationships with an IP wholesaler like Ibasis. My analysis had nothing to do with what enterprises could do about 9-11 (for it is indeed true that enterprise voice and data circuits tend to terminate at the same CO) to utilize of wholesalers but rather what a provider could have done to utilize wholesalers
Also, perhaps this was just an oversight on your part, but few if any of the wholesalers actually use the Internet for any of their capacity. IP is not the same as the Internet. The Internet will probably always suffer from problems related to security and/or reliability, because of the cherished anonymity of users (including those who would wreak havoc by creating viruses or DoS attacks) and because of the lack of a true central authority which is good because it allows for innovation, but you must admit is detrimental to reliability. Private IP networks can be properly secured and engineered in a way that the public Internet never can be. ""Geoff Kuchera"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Actually in the case of 9-11 if your internet was still working it was > because your data connection went through a Central office that was not > affected by the 9-11 incident. Keep in mind that data and traditional > voice still ride for the most part the same carrier services. Our > company lost several customers data connectivity due to the 9-11 > incident. Incidentally the connectivity loss occured about a week after > the buildings dropped when Sprints backup generators at the Manahtten CO > failes due to the long term load. We also lost a major connection to > one of our service providers that just happened to run out of the WTC. > Fortunatly in that case we had two redundant connections in other parts > of the country. > > So saying that the internet was up when the voice channels weren't would > be a big over statement. Voice was up for the whole rest of the country > and so was the internet. Unless you happened to live on Manhatten and > didn't have backup power and a satellite connection. > > -Geoff > > nrf wrote: > > Buggy/unreliable software is indeed the same anywhere. But when combined > > with buggy/unreliable OS's, now we're talking about a solution that is > > REALLY buggy and unreliable. For example, if your software is only > > guaranteed to run at 3 9's, and your OS is also only guaranteed to run at 3 > > 9's, then overall we're talking about a less-than-3-9's of a solution. > > > > You can actually run packetized voice very reliably, and not just for toll > > bypass (although it is definitely true that toll-bypass is the easiest and > > most mature kind of packetized voice to do). The key is that you have to > > design things in a certain way to maximize your reliability. Many > carriers > > like SBC use packetized voice with soft-switch signalling in certain parts > > of their network, and then you have packetized voice wholesalers like > Ibasis > > that have massive available voice capacity and a good reputation for > > reliability. There was a huge amount of serious talk after 9-11 for > Verizon > > and other carriers to contract for backup voice capacity through somebody > > like Ibasis in case their voice switches got destroyed again - as during > > 9-11, people saw that while traditional voice service was severely > affected, > > packet networks like the Internet were still functioning, so in these kinds > > of circumstances, you could say that packetized voice might actually be > more > > reliable than regular voice. But again, it takes very careful design to > > achieve this kind of reliability. > > > > > > ""Chuck"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>sure. ok. agreed. > >> > >>OTOH, buggy / unreliable software is the same, no matter whose platform it > >>runs on. A long time ago in a galaxy far away I was able to successfully > >>crash Sun Unix boxes several times through sheer ignorance. one was in the > >>Sun Sys Admin training class I was taking, the rest were Sun boxes that > > > > Big > > > >>Brokerage Firm had installed in the office where I worked. Proof that > > > > there > > > >>ain't no such thing as "foolproof" because this here fool can break just > >>about anything ;-> > >> > >>BTW, you have just ht on the major reason for NOT doing packetized voice. > > > > Or > > > >>maybe just limiting it to toll bypass, while keeping your PBX. Sometimes I > >>think the only real selling point for AVVID is that is "kewl" The biggest > >>selling points for Windows way back when were the screen savers and the > >>games. MCSE = Microsoft Certified Solitaire Expert > >> > >> > >>""nrf"" wrote in message > >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >>>Well, this kind of thing cuts both ways. A reseller I know is trying to > >>>sell AVVID and is on dangerous ground precisely because CM is on Windows > >> > >>and > >> > >>>the potential customer has had some very bad experiences with Windows > >>>servers due to reliability issues and so forth. The customer is > > > > deciding > > > >>>whether to go with AVVID or a traditional PBX, and the fact that AVVID > > > > is > > > >>so > >> > >>>Windows-centric is a significant minus, and in fact could be the whole > >> > >>basis > >> > >>>for losing the deal, because the customer has to know that his phone > >> > >>system > >> > >>>is going to always be up without any dithering around. Yes, yes, you > > > > can > > > >>do > >> > >>>things like clustering to improve the reliability of CM, but the simple > >> > >>fact > >> > >>>of the matter is that Windows has a well-founded reputation for > >>>unreliability when compared to UNIX, and when you're talking about phone > >>>systems, unreliability is definitely something that a potential customer > >>>does not want to hear. Not at all. This is why you rarely see any > >> > >>vendors > >> > >>>of enterprise software (like DB's, ERP, CRM, SCM, etc. etc.) that don't > >>>offer a UNIX version - because just like a phone system, these are > > > > crucial > > > >>>applications that just have to reliable. > >>> > >>>""Chuck"" wrote in message > >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>>>for whatever reason, Cisco and Microsoft are partnered for a lot of > >>> > >>>things. > >>> > >>>>Call Manager for *nix??? hahahahahahahahahaha > >>>> > >>>>IIRC the last Cisco management software presentation, just about > >>> > >>>everything > >>> > >>>>is on NT or Win2K boxes these days. > >>>> > >>>>I believe it's called Market Share - there are far more Microsoft > >>> > >>>certified > >>> > >>>>folk than *nix certified folk. Try selling AVVID when you also have to > >>> > >>>tell > >>> > >>>>a customer that he has to hire a *nix capable individual or retrain > > > > his > > > >>>>existing Microsoft capable people. Same for the management platform. > >> > >>same > >> > >>>>for any of the security related software products. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>""sergei"" wrote in message > >>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>>>Makes sense, - M$ products need it more... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>DAve Diaz wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Remember cisco have no money just $21 Billion dollars in the bank, > >> > >>so > >> > >>>>no > >>>> > >>>>>>new hardware for a while, no unix in a security lab that is > > > > absurb, > > > >>>>>>Dave > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>From: "markh" > >>>>>>>Reply-To: "markh" > >>>>>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>>>Subject: Re: CCIE Security Lab [7:17848] > >>>>>>>Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:33:52 -0500 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>really? > >>>>>>>-- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I have an official statement from Cisco that says that there > > > > will > > > >>>be > >>> > >>>>no > >>>> > >>>>>>>>UNIX, only NT. > >>>>>>>>I was there and it's true. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>MS > >>>>>> > >>>>>>_________________________________________________________________ > >>>>>>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > >>>> > >>>>http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63662&t=17848 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
