Hi CLimber,
>> Does this explain it?<<
In many ways, yes, but not entirely.
You'll note that the current depiction in your referenced link of their main backbone is ATM-based. My reference was to their recently announced upgrades of the backbone, which, if I recall correctly, was supposed to be IP-over-lambda-based, i.e., eliminating the ATM component altogether.
And I stated that I didn't notice any mention of bolstering the NAP bypasses, and caching in their upgrade releases. What you have shown me is worthwhile information, but it is historic information, predating the upgrade news.
But the NAPs, as shown in your link, seem to be covered, and in that respect my main point, and cause for concern, is negated. I stand corrected in that respect.
In the interim, between my earlier post and now, I received some emails from industry insiders. Some of the caching comments I made were corroborated, i.e., yes they are going forward with bolstering their caches, as well. Not yet, but planned. I also got a some confirmation concerning the ATHM's inability at this time to fully deploy what they would like to for reasons I mentioned in my post.
Your link, as dated as it is in terms of design, does shine a lot more favorably, however, on certain aspects of ATHM's preparedness (or at least their cognizance of the factors) than my post would have led one to believe, and I appreciate it.
Thanks for the corrective effects, and your input, and
Best Regards, Frank Coluccio |
