North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: Banc of America Article
- From: alex
- Date: Mon Jan 27 13:48:55 2003
> Actually, I think too many assumptions were made.
> Let's simplify.
> We know UUNet traffic capabilities were reduced significantly. Uunet
> has many big customers. Other big carriers had similar affects on their
> networks, probably particularly at peering points.
> We know many companies use public or private VPN services from major
> carriers such as these, and that both VPN types may use public internet
> I think therefore that the only true conclusion we could say is that if
> BoA's traffic was not prioritized, it therefore suffered collateral
> damage primarily due to traffic not being able to get through between
> ATM's and the central processing center.
Being someonewhat familiar with the design of ATM networks, I can tell you
that it is not correct. Your basic ATM gets two to three connections - one
being a data access line, the other being a regular alarm line. The data
access line is POTS, DS0 or, ISDN. The alarm line is POTS (the funny part is
that certain large banks when buying other banks forget what the other line
is used for and put a disconnect order on those creating lots of mess). The
transaction data is never supposed to travel on any non-dedicated network.