> I see a lot of operators are already selling FTTC
> as "uncontended"
I've only noticed unlimited.
> Can FTTC really be claimed as uncontended when
People stopped implementing a specific cotnention long
ago and at BTs backhaul rates why would they contend you,
there's money to be made on letti
As a side note to this discussion (and vaguely related to FTTC as a
replacement for EFM), I see a lot of operators are already selling FTTC
as "uncontended". Can FTTC really be claimed as uncontended when
operators have zero control or monitoring of the fibre circuit from the
exchange to the
We only use FireBricks, and I have no idea on cisco boxes - don't have
any :-)
I didn't expect anything less!
Presumably you could make an LAG on two ports, and have those cabled to
ports that are each untagged on a VLAN that then routes through to the
FTTC lines at the far end. That should work,
On 14/05/13 08:20, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Is that with the magic help of a Firebrick, or would it be possible with
> a Cisco or Juniper device? I've done a bit of googling and it would
> seem there's little if any material on how to do it. As far as I can
> tell LAGs are only poss
On 14/05/13 08:20, Charlie Boisseau wrote:
> Adrian,
>
> Is that with the magic help of a Firebrick, or would it be possible with
> a Cisco or Juniper device? I've done a bit of googling and it would
> seem there's little if any material on how to do it. As far as I can
> tell LAGs are only poss
Adrian,
Is that with the magic help of a Firebrick, or would it be possible with a
Cisco or Juniper device? I've done a bit of googling and it would seem there's
little if any material on how to do it. As far as I can tell LAGs are only
possible on a per-port basis (at least on Cisco switches
