Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : LAST MILE TECHNOLOGIES - Let's Discuss Them Here -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1791)	8/3/1998 5:58:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

"It becomes one of best effort" My ISP - Northwest Nexus - describes US West ASDL as a "best effort". Now, I know what they were referring to. Thanks for clarifying that point. Ken

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1791)	8/3/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12823

<<This should only be a problem less than ~0.2% (<?>) of the time if the carrier has sized the plant provisions correctly, which means they've taken all of the traffic dynamics into account, correctly. The larger carriers will normally do this. The shared tenant building owners, and the fly by night ISPs? Don't bet on it. Believe me on this: Don't bet on it!>> Frank, I would normally agree with this paragraph whole-heartedly. Especially in the circuit switched environment. But we're talking about data, asymetrical traffic flows, "split" lines, spectrum management and heterogeneous layer 2/3 equipment. What "larger" carrier do you know that doesn't have the same traffic engineering problems that smaller ones have in this type of environment? It is true that smaller carriers tend to watch their costs more closely because of the capital required to grow their businesses. However, even in an environment with generous capital spending, traffic engineering problems are manifest because all carriers engineer for oversubscription, without knowing the traffic from each user. Larger carriers have historically been able to simulate calling patterns and hold times in the voice world. But now, traffic is not conveniently packaged in 64 kbps time slots. It's helter-skelter. And that upsets the traditional traffic engineering algorithms of these large carriers. IMO, it has become one of the core cultural problems facing ILECs that are migrating to support packet-based services. Bill

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (1791)	8/4/1998 1:51:00 AM
From: wonk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12823

Frank: ...This should only be a problem less than ~0.2% (<?>) of the time if the carrier has sized the plant provisions correctly, which means they've taken all of the traffic dynamics into account, correctly. Rather than 0.2% I believe the standard for COs is 2%, generally written as "p.02" (the "p" short for probability). If memory serves, the Erlang B formula (blocked calls cleared) is used in this instance. However, for larger trunked groups (from the CO to the tandem or direct to an IXC POP) I believe the standard is p.01 or less and the Poisson formula is preferred (blocked calls delayed). While 2% at first blush seems high, it is applied against the "busy hour" traffic, which is continuously monitored and updated. Traffic modeling research continues, see: baltzer.nl Unfortunately, I need a dictionary to get through a single sentence of most of the abstracts. The challenge is the growth rate of the traffic and the willingness of the carrier to stay ahead of the curve: but you already said that.<g> ww