Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | reply to Done_Posting
Re: So much for capacity worries
I've toyed with one or two, not in a production environment. Interface is just hideous. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
 ·buckeye cable
| reply to Network Guy
said by Network Guy  :Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear. Haha, we actually do use Foundry's to provide WAN peering connections for our non-PtP ethernet and non-PtP DS1 / DS3 customers, as well as our sister cableco's cable modem platform. I take it your experience with Foundry equipment has been less than stellar?
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
Network Guy
join:2000-08-25
New York | reply to Done_Posting
As long as Cisco isn't leading nor isn't the only one rolling out next-gen equipment rollout, you can bet on continued lower costs.
Could be worst.. You could have Foundry gear. |
|
Done_Posting
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| reply to rebus9
We replaced our Mahi backhaul gear ($700,000+ each) with several Turin chassis ($400,000 each) recently. The Turin stuff is capable of OC-384, whereas I believe the Mahi maxed at OC-192. I want to say the OC-48 cards we populate the Turin are like $15K a pop, but I may be off. In any event, this is a good example of backbone equipment costs coming down. The Turin is beefier yet almost half the cost of the old stuff! Who knows -- by the time 2010 rolls around we'll probably see OC-768 gear in the $200K range!
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement... |
|
