Re: FR versus ISDN

Arnaud Girsch (girsch@marben.com)
Fri, 30 May 1997 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT)

>> > under 70 ms. Obviously, that would be the same regardless of the number
>> > of B channels we had up and running.
>>
>> Thats terrible. My customers with 2b channels get 25ms ping times.
>>
>> > The 70 ms time is obviously much more than you would normally get with
>> > FR but the throughput is the important part (to everyone except the
>> > real-time game players).
>>
>> > I'd rather be running FR or a conventional dedicated line to that
>> > location but the numbers didn't work out in this case. Unfortunately the
>> > reliability of those ISDN lines is not as good as what we've seen
>> > elsewhere which may push us to finally put in a "real" circuit.
>>
>> I bet you can increase your thruput if you get some better ta's or get
>> some isdn routers like the or-u

The figures I gave were obtained between two routers (Ascend).
But I think the fact that I had to go long distance, so jump from PacBell
to AT&T and then GTE had a lot to do with it.
Frame Relay is probably more efficient for long distance.

> This was obviously a price issue. We upgraded the link from a 56K
> dedicated to the two ISDN FX lines. This give us 256K throughput at what
> amounts to about 1/2 the cost of a dedicated 256K circuit and it used the
> existing PortMaster's at both ends. Excluding cost, my preference would
> be a T-1 to each POP, but somehow price does play into all this.

Hell ... FR is much much much less expensive for me (long distance).
(considering I had to pay something like $3 / 10 minutes with AT&T)

Arnaud.

-- 
Arnaud Girsch      -+- Marben Products, Inc. / DSET Corporation - San Jose, CA
agirsch@marben.com -+-    http://www.marben.com/   -+-    http://www.dset.com/