On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity > (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001.
Sounds like you're talking about 7018, not 7132 (SBC), and even 7018 is doing okay for capacity now that its high-traffic customers (Comcast) are moving traffic elsewhere. Do you have any specific data to share with the NANOG community supporting of these claims? > At least for clients I was working with, it was always evident that they > didn't have enough capacity in any node to carry the traffic if they had > a problem on any single upstream link. They also tended to manually > handle routing decisions as opposed to letting the IGP handle it. Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a network of AT&T's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE with static routing. Any data you could share would be extremely helpful. Paul Wall _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
