RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Louis A. Mamakos >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 4:31 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: void; Matt Dillon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > > >> I am perfectly aware of this. >> >> The RBOCs deserved to have those "fines" levied against them for a number >> of years, to punish them for attempting to block the CLECs. However, it's >> been long enough for this, and in fact the money from the RBOCs is >no longer >> being used to increase the CLEC's reach or service area (ie: >infrastructure) >> and being used by the CLECS to bash each other, instead of bashing the >> RBOCS. > >The recip-comp charges have nothing to do with extending the reach of >a CLEC's network. It's (supposed) to cover the cost of carrying or >terminating an inbound POTS voice call. Back up a sec - the reason that Bellcore was busted up is because the trust people claimed that CLECs could provide voice dialup better and cheaper than ILECS by the sheer fact that they were competitive. The FCC has always pushed as hard as it could to give CLECs an advantage over RBOCS to promote competition. The RBOCS forced the call term charges as a fairness issue. Once it was discovered that the cash transfer was going towards the CLECS from the ILECS, the FCC couldn't have been happier. They never wanted things to be fair in the first place between the CLECS and the RBOCS. By the pro-breakup people's definition, the CLECS incur less cost than the RBOCS for terminating a call. If this was a fairness issue then the RBOCS would only have to pay the CLECS the actual cost incurred by the more efficient CLECS for the call term. But instead they pay what it costs the RBOCS to terminate a call (which is higher according to the pro-breakup people's definition) Now, obviously it's hard to know what the truth is because the entire point of Telco accounting is to so confuse the numbers that the PUC's and the FCC and all the other governmental regulators are so baffled by them that they pretty much throw their hands up in the air and accept whatever bullshit the phone companies care to dish out. Telco accounting is the science of making an absolute into a negotiated item. > >Huh? You might also explain the situation as subsidizing the cost >of providing Internet service. It's revenue coming into the business >which would otherwise need to come from some other source, such as the >customers. > And of course the entire point of running a Telco is to not make a profit by the customers that are supposedly paying you for the service your supposedly giving, but to screw everyone else in the business that's otherwise totally unaffiliated into paying for your customers. Yes, I know all about that. :-( >There are lots of other examples of charges and tariffs which telecom >carriers charge each other because of the bizzare reality set up by >FCC regulations. You simply siezed upon one with contemporary sex-appeal. > >If you want to rant about something, go take a look at how half-circuit >pricing is done for international private lines. Don't even get me started. There's a huge litany. Like, why are T1 charges so gouging yet DSL (which delivers more bandwidth in some cases) so rediculously low. Like, why is each trunk on a T1 charged at nearly the same rate as if it were provided by POTS yet it costs the phone company 10% of the expense to deliver trunks over T1 than POTS. Like why is mileage charges allowed in a calling area when it costs the phone company exactly the same amount to run a T1 5 miles as it does to run it 1 mile (and in some cases the CO is 4 miles from both endpoints so the total line length is 8 miles but they still only charge for 5) >You think the US >carriers are evil, go see what state-supported telecom monopolies get >to do. Or the hoops which much be jumped through to get licenses to >operate telecom, datacom, or Internet lines of business in some >countries around the world. > Ah - you mean like China. Don't forget all the state-sponsored porno filtering of the Internet feeds into Iran either. Yes there are some very nasty and greedy people in the world. Frankly, as long as the CLECs and ILECS are using the FCC to beat each other over the heads, I could care less. What I get mad about is that the CLECS seem to have given up fighting with the RBOCS and are turning against the ISPs. It's like they turn around and start bullying the ISP's simply because the ISP's are weaker than they are. Yet it was those ISP's that got the recipri-comp payments wacked out in the CLECs favor to start with. That's gratitude for you. Ted
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
> I am perfectly aware of this. > > The RBOCs deserved to have those "fines" levied against them for a number > of years, to punish them for attempting to block the CLECs. However, it's > been long enough for this, and in fact the money from the RBOCs is no longer > being used to increase the CLEC's reach or service area (ie: infrastructure) > and being used by the CLECS to bash each other, instead of bashing the > RBOCS. The recip-comp charges have nothing to do with extending the reach of a CLEC's network. It's (supposed) to cover the cost of carrying or terminating an inbound POTS voice call. In in more generic view, recip-comp shows up in the "revenue" column of the balance sheet. To assume it's intended to be any more than that is imagination. > The situation is equivalent to Foreign Aid that the US pays to a country such > as Japan. (which we still do to the tune of millions and millions of dollars > a year) Japan has long since ceased being a poor relation that needs to be > bailed out. The reasons for them being paid off by the US have been > fulfilled. > Yet, the payments continue, and the money is being used to free up other > funding that's being spent on political - not necessary - things. Huh? You might also explain the situation as subsidizing the cost of providing Internet service. It's revenue coming into the business which would otherwise need to come from some other source, such as the customers. There are lots of other examples of charges and tariffs which telecom carriers charge each other because of the bizzare reality set up by FCC regulations. You simply siezed upon one with contemporary sex-appeal. If you want to rant about something, go take a look at how half-circuit pricing is done for international private lines. You think the US carriers are evil, go see what state-supported telecom monopolies get to do. Or the hoops which much be jumped through to get licenses to operate telecom, datacom, or Internet lines of business in some countries around the world. Disclaimer: I work for a big stupid phone company, and have unfortunately become aware of this and many other regulatory issues. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Louis A. Mamakos >Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 6:43 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: void; Matt Dillon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > > >> >> We have been told by our rep at Time Warner Communications that >those payments >> are still continuing. TW (at least in PDX) does not have enough >voice sales >> to be able to get on that pig trough and is equally unhappy as we >are that the >> RBOC's are propping up what are in effect bankrupt CLECs. >> >> I used to have sympathy for the CLECs and their beef that the ILEC's are >> screwing everyone by not allowing competition. But not any more - in our >> market the CLEC's charge about 95% of what the ILEC charges for voice >> services, so the customers gain nothing on the voice side of the house. >> Instead, the way that the CLEC's get customers is by giving away Internet >> service for free. In short, the call termination payments fund the >> Internet service, instead of decreasing the cost of the voice service. >> >> Basically, the CLEC's have figured out how to use a poor government >> regulation that needs changing to put their competition out of business. >> It's no different than what Microsoft does when they use operating system >> revenue to fund a variety of unprofitable and destructive ventures into >> software applications like web browsers, web servers, ecommerce apps, etc. >> >> The only saving grace is that most of the CLECS are so ignorant when it >> comes to networking that their Internet service is so awful that at least >> the good customers are staying away from them for now. > >You have much of this backwards. > >This whole notion of "reciprocal compensation" for call termination was >originally put into the telecom tariffs by the RBOCs to prevent competation >in the local space. They figured that the call volume would be asymetrical, >with the CLEC customer calling "the rest of the world" connected to the >RBOCs. Thus, they created an unlevel playing field and changed the rules >of the game. This "poor goverment regulation" is there solely because >the RBOCs worked really hard to ensure it would be put there. > >Surprise, surprise, a bunch of folks came along and decided that the >new game was one they could play, and used it to their advantage. D'oh! >(And this was sweet, because these same telecom tariffs would be used >by the RBOCs on a regular basis to whack their customers/competitors, >with the excuse, "Our hands are tied!" > I am perfectly aware of this. The RBOCs deserved to have those "fines" levied against them for a number of years, to punish them for attempting to block the CLECs. However, it's been long enough for this, and in fact the money from the RBOCs is no longer being used to increase the CLEC's reach or service area (ie: infrastructure) and being used by the CLECS to bash each other, instead of bashing the RBOCS. The situation is equivalent to Foreign Aid that the US pays to a country such as Japan. (which we still do to the tune of millions and millions of dollars a year) Japan has long since ceased being a poor relation that needs to be bailed out. The reasons for them being paid off by the US have been fulfilled. Yet, the payments continue, and the money is being used to free up other funding that's being spent on political - not necessary - things. >Live by the tariff, die by the tariff. > then there's also the saw about the kid won't never amount to anything if mommy's apron strings aren't ever cut. Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
> > We have been told by our rep at Time Warner Communications that those payments > are still continuing. TW (at least in PDX) does not have enough voice sales > to be able to get on that pig trough and is equally unhappy as we are that the > RBOC's are propping up what are in effect bankrupt CLECs. > > I used to have sympathy for the CLECs and their beef that the ILEC's are > screwing everyone by not allowing competition. But not any more - in our > market the CLEC's charge about 95% of what the ILEC charges for voice > services, so the customers gain nothing on the voice side of the house. > Instead, the way that the CLEC's get customers is by giving away Internet > service for free. In short, the call termination payments fund the > Internet service, instead of decreasing the cost of the voice service. > > Basically, the CLEC's have figured out how to use a poor government > regulation that needs changing to put their competition out of business. > It's no different than what Microsoft does when they use operating system > revenue to fund a variety of unprofitable and destructive ventures into > software applications like web browsers, web servers, ecommerce apps, etc. > > The only saving grace is that most of the CLECS are so ignorant when it > comes to networking that their Internet service is so awful that at least > the good customers are staying away from them for now. You have much of this backwards. This whole notion of "reciprocal compensation" for call termination was originally put into the telecom tariffs by the RBOCs to prevent competation in the local space. They figured that the call volume would be asymetrical, with the CLEC customer calling "the rest of the world" connected to the RBOCs. Thus, they created an unlevel playing field and changed the rules of the game. This "poor goverment regulation" is there solely because the RBOCs worked really hard to ensure it would be put there. Surprise, surprise, a bunch of folks came along and decided that the new game was one they could play, and used it to their advantage. D'oh! (And this was sweet, because these same telecom tariffs would be used by the RBOCs on a regular basis to whack their customers/competitors, with the excuse, "Our hands are tied!" Live by the tariff, die by the tariff. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: void [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 9:22 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Matt Dillon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 10:09:44PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> In our market, and I swear this is true, we have CLEC's that are selling >> fractional T1's (split voice/data with add-drop DSU's) and they >are charging >> less than $50 a month for 768k or greater feeds. It's competitive >with DSL. >> The customer pays for the voice lines which are maybe $1-$5 >cheaper per trunk >> than what the ILEC would charge, then gets in essense a free Internet feed. >> Now, obviously the CLEC is planning on the company growing and >adding trunks >> onto that T1, because they are making their money off the voice >circuits and >> the call termination payments that the RBOC's are paying them. > >I thought the RBOCs got the call termination payment scheme repealed >when it didn't work out in their favor like they thought it would. >But I can't find a reference, at least I haven't yet. > We have been told by our rep at Time Warner Communications that those payments are still continuing. TW (at least in PDX) does not have enough voice sales to be able to get on that pig trough and is equally unhappy as we are that the RBOC's are propping up what are in effect bankrupt CLECs. I used to have sympathy for the CLECs and their beef that the ILEC's are screwing everyone by not allowing competition. But not any more - in our market the CLEC's charge about 95% of what the ILEC charges for voice services, so the customers gain nothing on the voice side of the house. Instead, the way that the CLEC's get customers is by giving away Internet service for free. In short, the call termination payments fund the Internet service, instead of decreasing the cost of the voice service. Basically, the CLEC's have figured out how to use a poor government regulation that needs changing to put their competition out of business. It's no different than what Microsoft does when they use operating system revenue to fund a variety of unprofitable and destructive ventures into software applications like web browsers, web servers, ecommerce apps, etc. The only saving grace is that most of the CLECS are so ignorant when it comes to networking that their Internet service is so awful that at least the good customers are staying away from them for now. Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-- > Ben > >"An art scene of delight > I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
(redirected to -chat. it's pity that there are no freebsd-flame@ redirected to /dev/null;)) Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 12:58:54, Bsdguru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote about "Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards": > Thats pretty lame Matt. I hope you're joking. (Otherwise you should carefully consider your own lameness.;)) > sort of like saying unix sucks because of all of the > bugs and growing pains over the years. Zebra has come a long way, and its as > easy to configure as a cisco. Your problems with gated and BSDI have more to > do with those organizations than anything else, plus it is stuck with an ill > conceived interface. There is a host near me who panic'ed each time zebra was running at it. (I couldn't even understand core dump - stack and process list were filled with garbage. Possibly, nlist was overwritten? And no disctinct diagnosis was got from it...) Now it lives with gated without such strange problems. This was only one small example. If you aren't lame you should understand that external conditions can be so strange that cannot allow your The Only Right Way. > Lets face it, if cisco didnt tell you what to type into your config file > almost noone would be able to get them to work either. Do you work with cisco tightly? (Question maybe is rhitoric) /netch To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
In a message dated 10/13/01 9:33:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Hmm. Well, as a person who ran gated at BEST, has hacked on gated on > same, had to deal with BSDI and FreeBSD route table bugs, tracked down > OSPF bugs for a friend running gated, and otherwise spent hundreds of > hours (at least!) keeping boxes running gated operational... well, I'll > take the Cisco any day thank you very much! > > If you are a small ISP and you have enough money to pay for two T1's, > you have enough money to buy a used router that can do BGP for you. > IMHO. > > -Matt > Thats pretty lame Matt. sort of like saying unix sucks because of all of the bugs and growing pains over the years. Zebra has come a long way, and its as easy to configure as a cisco. Your problems with gated and BSDI have more to do with those organizations than anything else, plus it is stuck with an ill conceived interface. Lets face it, if cisco didnt tell you what to type into your config file almost noone would be able to get them to work either. B To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: Matt Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 6:33 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >:on the Internet has been routers costing in the $100,000 range. Now, maybe >:BEST Internet is now wealthy enough that you can blow that kind of money on >:Cisco gear without thinking about it, but a lot of smaller ISP's are not. >: >:If you look at what happened last weekend on Sunday, and the number >of people >:that screamed about it, it's quite obvious that there are a huge number of >:gated and zebra boxes out there handling global routing. Take off those >:Cisco blinders, boy! ;-) >: >:Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] >:Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide > >Hmm. Well, as a person who ran gated at BEST, has hacked on gated on >same, had to deal with BSDI and FreeBSD route table bugs, tracked down >OSPF bugs for a friend running gated, and otherwise spent hundreds of >hours (at least!) keeping boxes running gated operational... well, I'll >take the Cisco any day thank you very much! :-) As I've said I run both - and each has it's strengths and weaknesses. I've not had the problems you apparently did with gated. However, I'll admit that you probably ran it a lot earlier than I did, on a lot slower hardware than I, thus I'm benefiting from all the bug-squishing that you have done on gated and FreeBSD. I have found that CPU speed makes a huge difference. I have had lots of problems trying to run BGP and gated on anything slower than a 400Mhz system. > >If you are a small ISP and you have enough money to pay for two T1's, >you have enough money to buy a used router that can do BGP for you. >IMHO. > Probably for you or I because we both know Cisco and are familiar with the ins and outs of their stuff and know where to get used gear. But, if you do it the Cisco Way, where you go buy a new 7206VXR with a service contract - no way. In our market, and I swear this is true, we have CLEC's that are selling fractional T1's (split voice/data with add-drop DSU's) and they are charging less than $50 a month for 768k or greater feeds. It's competitive with DSL. The customer pays for the voice lines which are maybe $1-$5 cheaper per trunk than what the ILEC would charge, then gets in essense a free Internet feed. Now, obviously the CLEC is planning on the company growing and adding trunks onto that T1, because they are making their money off the voice circuits and the call termination payments that the RBOC's are paying them. So they give away the Internet service as an enticement. And, obviously it's crap - I've used a few of them and your lucky to get 128kbits/sec on a "768k point to point to the Internet" And these same CLECS are also still not profitable (according to the local business journal) and haven't been for years. But, the upshot is that it's tremendously depressed prices for point-to-point or Frame service in our market. It's a very hard sell to sell one of these circuits now and we usually have to walk the prospect over to another of our customers to demonstrate what a true 768Kbps is supposed to be like. Now I don't know if we are just in a over-wired market, although PDX has more Internet usage per capita than any other city in the country. But, I've heard about markets (like Phoenix) where there's only national providers and a single regional provider, all the other regional providers have gone out of business. In those markets, yes, the regional provider that has enough money to pay for 2 T1's probably can charge enough to afford a used router that will do BGP. But, in markets like ours, the margins are far, far thinner. You cut where it makes sense, and gated on FreeBSD makes sense for one of our border routers, (probably also for a second, I just haven't gotten around to replacing it) Given a choice between spending on a lot of networking hardware so we can say we are 100% Cisco, and spending the money on more bandwidth, the choice is obvious. Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
:on the Internet has been routers costing in the $100,000 range. Now, maybe :BEST Internet is now wealthy enough that you can blow that kind of money on :Cisco gear without thinking about it, but a lot of smaller ISP's are not. : :If you look at what happened last weekend on Sunday, and the number of people :that screamed about it, it's quite obvious that there are a huge number of :gated and zebra boxes out there handling global routing. Take off those :Cisco blinders, boy! ;-) : :Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] :Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Hmm. Well, as a person who ran gated at BEST, has hacked on gated on same, had to deal with BSDI and FreeBSD route table bugs, tracked down OSPF bugs for a friend running gated, and otherwise spent hundreds of hours (at least!) keeping boxes running gated operational... well, I'll take the Cisco any day thank you very much! If you are a small ISP and you have enough money to pay for two T1's, you have enough money to buy a used router that can do BGP for you. IMHO. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: Matt Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 10:40 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >The Cisco 2600 series is great for T1's. A 2620 with a T1 card (it >can take up to two) and you are done. The 2501's are ancient, don't >even bother any more. You can find 2620's on EBay in the $700-$1500 >range, many of which appear (in my quick look) to include a T1 card. > >As much as I like to support running things on BSD, I stopped trying to >run T1's from general purpose unix boxes 4 years ago. When BEST Internet >first started we ran the (old) Riscom cards from a BSDI box w/ >an external >csu/dsu, and they were great for that, but these days the overall >cost of ownership is much, much lower with a used cisco and a WAN >card with an integrated csu/dsu in it. It's file and forget... once >you set the thing up you don't have to touch it ever again. > >One advantage of the dot-com crash is that EBay and other sites are >saturated with high quality, barely used hardware. > This is very true for leaf-node routers as used at customer sites and I've said the same thing myself on freebsd-questions before. However, there's still a market for those "Internet access toasters" that are basically PC's plus T1 interfaces, for the "set and forget" crowd. The cost issue, however, not true for BGP routers. Despite the dot-bombs the 7204/6 and the 3640 (both minimum cost of entry for BGP4 on Cisco) are both still very expensive even on Ebay. It's still cheaper to hook a fast Celery or something like that to an ISP feed. Furthermore, I feel compelled to point out that the Internet is still getting bigger and bigger and bigger. At some point in time even with Cisco's packing algorithims, the BGP route table plus Cisco IOS will exceed 128MB of ram. (both the 7206 and 3640 are limited to this as a maximum) Long before that the CPU's used in those Cisco devices will be swamped. And, I hear your answer to that, but screw that, why should I have to settle for a half-assed BGP feed with 3/4's of the routes chopped out of it from my providers? I've run BGP4 into both 7206's with NPE200's and Pentium 500Mhz systems with WANic cards, and the PC will converge BGP views faster than the Cisco, and tolerate route flaps far better, while under routing load. Cisco has a lot of exposure here, and their answer to the need for increased routing power on the Internet has been routers costing in the $100,000 range. Now, maybe BEST Internet is now wealthy enough that you can blow that kind of money on Cisco gear without thinking about it, but a lot of smaller ISP's are not. If you look at what happened last weekend on Sunday, and the number of people that screamed about it, it's quite obvious that there are a huge number of gated and zebra boxes out there handling global routing. Take off those Cisco blinders, boy! ;-) Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 11:57 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >> >> You know I really think your baiting me. You know perfectly well that >> Hitachi and Cisco are not the same company. Anyway, Cisco is still >> selling the 2501 router, (although list on it is $2600 and nobody buying >> it for a single connection to the Internet would buy it new) I just >> logged into their reseller's website and the 2501 is still readily >available. >> > >I dont have to "bait" you..but you dont seem to "get" it. Cisco isnt >manufacturing 2501s anymore, so they areent buying ICs from Hitachi anymore Prove this. The fact is that Cisco is still selling them. Do you work for Cisco? >(I dont know where you get this "same company" stuff). Cisco may >have stopped >buying them years ago. Often when a chip manufacturer loses their main >customer, they discontinue the part for newer parts, or often when they >upgrade their foundries to new processes they can no longer make >older parts, >and its not cost-effective to rework them. > Cisco is just one customer among many that purchases this controller chip. SBS, who makes the WANic, is another customer that purchases this chip. There are undoubtedly other manufacturers that use this controller chip. >I only suggested that a card vendor is not in control of this, so it may not >be their choice that a card is being "phased out". When you buy ICs >you get a >notice a year in advance that the part is being phased out. > Then where is the announcement on the SBS website that this card is being phased out? Where is the info from Hitachi saying this controller chip is being phased out? >You are arguing a point without any facts, wrong. Fact is that the 2500 series uses the controler chip. Fact is that Cisco is still selling 2500's. If they are selling them they must be making them. Fact is that if they are making them they must use this chip. Fact is that there's no announcement from SBS anywhere stating that the WANic400 or the RIScom (which uses this chip) is being discontinued. Fact is they are still selling them. If they are selling them they must still be making them. Fact is that if they are making them they must be purchasing this controller chip. Fact is that Hitachi does not list this part as discontinued in their catalog. and Im merely suggesting a >scenario in which your "logic" doesnt work. Take if for what its worth. Your right in saying that both you and I are suggesting a scenario. However, mine is based on observed fact. Yours is based on unfounded speculation. If you could show any notice anywhere that this card is being discontinued then I'd grant that your speculation has some validity. But, you haven't. Until you do all your doing is spreading Fear Doubt Uncertainty (FUD) >Im >sure you dont understand the opportunity costs that Hitachi has related to >their foundry capacities. > I'm sure you don't either. However, I'm sure that I do understand the opportunity costs of small chip foundaries because it so happens I used to work for a company that manufactured an electronic device that used a custom chip in it, and they regularly purchased this chip in very small lots (100 to 500) It's perfectly possible for a chip foundry to make money off small runs. If someday Hitachi cannot make money off this controller chip any more because the volumes have gone down too much then I'm sure that there will be interested companies that will purchase the design. At this point in time the WANic400 series works, is available, and the driver works. Unfounded speculation that the card may disappear in the future contributes nothing and can even be damaging in that it could cause people to stop purchasing the card and thus hasten the day that the card is obsoleted. If you have a driver to contribute for the WANic500 series to FreeBSD then I'd cut you some slack in your efforts to condem the WANic400 but until then, kindly base your opinions on some real evidence. You need to consider that there has been little change in the price matrix used by the Telco's for high-speed circuits. DSL is not and cannot replace all T1 circuits and the costs to a small company to get high speed Internet access over anything faster than a T1 are completely unreasonable and impossible. There's a large number of business out there that are not reachable with broadband circuits because they are based too far away from telephone CO's and as a result they purchase Internet access over T1's. There's also a huge number of company sites that are part
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
In a message dated 10/13/2001 1:24:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> You tell your supplier that since the 405 is being "phased out" that he > >> should sell you a bunch of them at closeout prices. > >> > > > >Perhaps the fact that the (incredibly slow) 2501 has been > >phased out has caused Hitachi to "phase out" their part? > > You know I really think your baiting me. You know perfectly well that > Hitachi and Cisco are not the same company. Anyway, Cisco is still > selling the 2501 router, (although list on it is $2600 and nobody buying > it for a single connection to the Internet would buy it new) I just > logged into their reseller's website and the 2501 is still readily available. > I dont have to "bait" you..but you dont seem to "get" it. Cisco isnt manufacturing 2501s anymore, so they areent buying ICs from Hitachi anymore (I dont know where you get this "same company" stuff). Cisco may have stopped buying them years ago. Often when a chip manufacturer loses their main customer, they discontinue the part for newer parts, or often when they upgrade their foundries to new processes they can no longer make older parts, and its not cost-effective to rework them. I only suggested that a card vendor is not in control of this, so it may not be their choice that a card is being "phased out". When you buy ICs you get a notice a year in advance that the part is being phased out. You are arguing a point without any facts, and Im merely suggesting a scenario in which your "logic" doesnt work. Take if for what its worth. Im sure you dont understand the opportunity costs that Hitachi has related to their foundry capacities. B To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
The Cisco 2600 series is great for T1's. A 2620 with a T1 card (it can take up to two) and you are done. The 2501's are ancient, don't even bother any more. You can find 2620's on EBay in the $700-$1500 range, many of which appear (in my quick look) to include a T1 card. As much as I like to support running things on BSD, I stopped trying to run T1's from general purpose unix boxes 4 years ago. When BEST Internet first started we ran the (old) Riscom cards from a BSDI box w/ an external csu/dsu, and they were great for that, but these days the overall cost of ownership is much, much lower with a used cisco and a WAN card with an integrated csu/dsu in it. It's file and forget... once you set the thing up you don't have to touch it ever again. One advantage of the dot-com crash is that EBay and other sites are saturated with high quality, barely used hardware. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
>-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 6:25 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >In a message dated 10/12/01 1:08:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> Consider that the Hitachi controller chip used on the WANic 405 is the >> SAME chip that Cisco uses in it's 25xx series of routers, and the Cisco >> 2501 is the most used router in the world and has the most installed >> units. >> >> SBS Communications is STILL selling the RISCom series of cards which is >> the predecessor to the WANic, uses the same controller, these are >ISA cards >> that have a design that's over 10 years old. >> >> You tell your supplier that since the 405 is being "phased out" that he >> should sell you a bunch of them at closeout prices. >> > >Perhaps the fact that the (incredibly slow) 2501 has been >phased out has caused Hitachi to "phase out" their part? You know I really think your baiting me. You know perfectly well that Hitachi and Cisco are not the same company. Anyway, Cisco is still selling the 2501 router, (although list on it is $2600 and nobody buying it for a single connection to the Internet would buy it new) I just logged into their reseller's website and the 2501 is still readily available. And as far as speed of the router, yes the 2501 is incredibly slow. So what? This has absolutely nothing whatsover to do with the HD64570 controller chip which is rated to 7Mbts. The 2501 is slow because it has a 20Mhz Motorola 68000 series CPU, not because the serial controller chip is slow. >You know, big chip >vendors have bigger fish to fry than the WanIC series. I don't understand why your spreading FUD when a few minutes work on the Hitachi website could answer your question. Hitachi Semiconductors manufacturers thousands of semiconductors and many have much smaller markets than this. A check on their website shows this contoller still available. In fact the most recent documents are dated 1998. Trust me they still know that this chip exists. And anyway, as long as there are customers for the controller chip then someone out there will buy the design and continue to manufacture the chip. After all AMD is still selling 8088 CPU variants for the embedded market. >HDLC controllers that >can barely run 2 T1s are not mainstream these days, so they may just >not want >to make it anymore. First of all, it takes one HD64570 per port, not two. The HD64570 is not a dual ported chip. And secondly the chip is perfectly capabable of running at a T1 speed and in fact much faster. It's all a pricing issue. SBS Communications (manufacturer of the WANic) is going to manufacture these cards until they can't sell enough of them to make a profit anymore - since they haven't said they are stopping making them, that's proof they are still profitable. If they start having trouble sourcing the controller from Hitachi and there's still sufficient interest in the market then they will just approach another chip manufacturer and that one will buy the controller design from Hitachi. >If you think that Hitachi cares that there are "open >source" drivers in use in what they would consider a handful of >applications, >you dont understand the chip business. When cisco goes away, they find a >better use for their foundry. > Everything your saying seems to indicate that your the one that doesen't understand the chip business. For starters, a chip foundry that is set up for manufacture of this controller could never manufacture more modern chips without being completely razed and rebuilt. Secondly, chip foundaries don't operate like this. What happens is that Hitachi has made this chip before, so they know that their cheapest price point to make the chip is to set up a production run of, say, 15,000 devices that takes 2 weeks to run. So they simply monitor inventory and as long as the product is moving out of the warehouse, they simply wait until they are down to, say 500 devices, then at that time they schedule another run of the controller chip in the foundry. That run completes, the warehouse is replentished, and they then turn the foundry over to work on a different chip design for some other product. All Hitachi cares about is that there's customers still buying the controller, and as long as there are they will make the chip. Consider also that this is a general purpose synchronous serial controller and can be used in a lot of applications other than just T1's. What all this discussion is boiling down to IMHO is Imagestream - because they sell the WANic+driver package to ISP's that are attempting to build r
Re: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
In a message dated 10/12/01 1:08:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Consider that the Hitachi controller chip used on the WANic 405 is the > SAME chip that Cisco uses in it's 25xx series of routers, and the Cisco > 2501 is the most used router in the world and has the most installed > units. > > SBS Communications is STILL selling the RISCom series of cards which is > the predecessor to the WANic, uses the same controller, these are ISA cards > that have a design that's over 10 years old. > > You tell your supplier that since the 405 is being "phased out" that he > should sell you a bunch of them at closeout prices. > Calm yourself Ted. Perhaps the fact that the (incredibly slow) 2501 has been phased out has caused Hitachi to "phase out" their part? You know, big chip vendors have bigger fish to fry than the WanIC series. HDLC controllers that can barely run 2 T1s are not mainstream these days, so they may just not want to make it anymore. If you think that Hitachi cares that there are "open source" drivers in use in what they would consider a handful of applications, you dont understand the chip business. When cisco goes away, they find a better use for their foundry. B To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
RE: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
The WANic 5xx's use an incompatible chipset and the driver will not work with them. I thnk your supplier is feeding you a line of bullshit. SBS Communications has posted no plans whatsover to discontinue or change the WANic line. They are fully aware that the 405's have open source drivers and are furthermore used in embedded systems too. The WANic 5xx series of cards sell for more money and so naturally your supplier is most interested in maximizing his margin and would prefer to push you into a more expensive card. With the increase in CPU power all of the go-fast hardware on the higher-level cards is less important. Consider that the Hitachi controller chip used on the WANic 405 is the SAME chip that Cisco uses in it's 25xx series of routers, and the Cisco 2501 is the most used router in the world and has the most installed units. SBS Communications is STILL selling the RISCom series of cards which is the predecessor to the WANic, uses the same controller, these are ISA cards that have a design that's over 10 years old. You tell your supplier that since the 405 is being "phased out" that he should sell you a bunch of them at closeout prices. Ted Mittelstaedt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of MurrayTaylor >Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 4:49 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards > > >As the WanIC-405 is being phased out (according to my supplier >down under here in OZ), has any development / testing been done on the >apparent replacement, the WanIC-521 (522, 524 ... ) range > >I am especially interested in its compatibility with its predecessor >which I am using very successfully for frame relay under Netgraph. > >I'm trying to get compatability info from the supplier here, >but we are a long way down the food chain ;-( > >Tia > >Murray Taylor >Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Imagestream WanIC-520 interface cards
As the WanIC-405 is being phased out (according to my supplier down under here in OZ), has any development / testing been done on the apparent replacement, the WanIC-521 (522, 524 ... ) range I am especially interested in its compatibility with its predecessor which I am using very successfully for frame relay under Netgraph. I'm trying to get compatability info from the supplier here, but we are a long way down the food chain ;-( Tia Murray Taylor Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
