Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
Not sure how you can say no to my 2nd comment, as VM have a poor record for dealing with congestion, so for you to say no to that would mean VM doing a policy shift. Planning for 8 downstreams is just PR talk at this time, given how long its taking to even get every area to 5 downstreams never mind 8, 8 could be years away.
|
I can say no quite easily, I just know stuff and increasing oversubscription rates can be mitigated in a number of ways, both controlling supply of bandwidth and demand. You also forget that downstream upgrades don't go anywhere near the level of increased usage that upstream upgrades bring, there's only so much to download.
4 -> 5 downstreams is a far more complicated job than 5 -> 8. It needed line cards to be replaced in the case of BSRs and a shift to I-CMTS architecture in a number of cases on the Cisco.
I would recommend looking at how the line cards are broken down, multiples of ports per line card, etc, it would make more sense than assuming that the line card replacement required to go from 4 to 5 or in the case of many Cisco 10ks even just 3 to 4 downstreams is replicated in going to 8.
I'm not aware of it being PR talk, I've not seen VM make big news of this. Beyond us nerds no-one really gives a monkey's about how many downstreams VM are using in each service group.