how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to espaeth
Re: This makes even less sense than the Exaflood argument Backbone capacity was never what the Exaflood propaganda was addressing. Well one, the Exaflood propaganda wasn't "addressing" anything. It was crap logic, using fear to sell networking gear, or to convince stupid regulators to deregulate if they didn't want the Internet to implode. Two, since 2007 groups like Nemertes Research and other exaflooders (including Cisco) predicted problems at both the core and the last mile resulting in broad brownouts Internet wide. Cisco was part of pushing this crap into the public consciousness....now their CRS-3 marketing claims highlight how the new technology alleviates these problems....so talk to Cisco. | |
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| said by Karl Bode:Well one, the Exaflood propaganda wasn't "addressing" anything. It was crap logic, using fear to sell networking gear, or to convince stupid regulators to deregulate if they didn't want the Internet to implode. You do the same shit, Karl. You create editorial after editorial about how providers need to upgrade their networks because all kinds of high bandwidth applications are going to catch on any day now. The only difference is the Exaflood folks make more money doing it, and their arguments are more finely polished.
said by Karl Bode:Two, since 2007 groups like Nemertes Research and other exaflooders (including Cisco) predicted problems at both the core and the last mile resulting in broad brownouts Internet wide. Cisco was part of pushing this crap into the public consciousness.... Path congestion could still very well be an issue, but I haven't seen anyone argue core limitations in any of the propaganda I've read. Yes, I'll acknowledge the Exaflood propaganda is garbage, but it's only made worse by your misinterpretation of it.
I've actually been to the lead Sprintlink NOC in Reston,VA and the old UUNet NOC in Cary, NC. Backbone operators have growth down to a science, and the tools exist at that well-funded position of the network (wholesale bandwidth) to continue to meet all anticipated growth demands.
said by Karl Bode:now their CRS-3 marketing claims highlight how the new technology alleviates these problems....so talk to Cisco. Their claims are aggregate throughput, which everyone in the industry knows is misleading, and you're taking it one step further by relating it to yet another marketing campaign in the Exaflood devaluing the meaning even further. Augmenting core capacity isn't going to do squat when the key bottleneck in path congestion is the last mile.
To reach 322Terabit you'd need a minimum of 70 chassis fully populated with 40Gig interface line cards in each slot with a bill of materials price well over 9 figures. Who is spending that kind of money at a single site? | | |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | You do the same shit, Karl. You create editorial after editorial about how providers need to upgrade their networks because all kinds of high bandwidth applications are going to catch on any day now. Technically, most of my editorials focus on the fact that carriers should put the money back into the network instead of suckling at the teet of myopic investors who put immediate returns ahead of the company's long-range future or consumers. I also frequently argue that a lack of competition in the sector impacts said investment.
I've never argued that "providers need to upgrade their networks because all kinds of high bandwidth applications are going to catch on any day now," and in fact I've often argued that 100 Mbps home connections are largely marketing. But sure, if it makes you feel better to think my ten years of work here on hundreds of topics is the same thing as fake industry science used to con the public, fine. That's sweet. Wrong, and insulting as shit, but sweet.
Ironic though that you'd distort my positions and then complain about me distorting positions.Yes, I'll acknowledge the Exaflood propaganda is garbage, but it's only made worse by your misinterpretation of it. Yes, clearly the problem is with me misrepresenting fake junk science based on completely fabricated data by pointing out that it's junk science based on completely fabricated data.Augmenting core capacity isn't going to do squat when the key bottleneck in path congestion is the last mile. I believe I already agreed with you. The story you're commenting on that I wrote says the same thing. I also appreciate your network insights and they make excellent sense. But again, I'd argue the core enemy of your tirade would be Cisco's marketing department.
Either the world as we know it is ending due to network management and capacity problems (that can only be fixed by "X" -- deregulation, fewer consumer protections, whatever), or the CRS-3 helps put those fears to bed and network engineers are savvy enough to consistently be ahead of capacity demand. The industry doesn't get to argue both things when it's convenient for them. | |
|
