View Single Post
Old 15-07-2015, 22:03   #55
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 48
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Uddingston upstream 3 channels?

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus View Post
if the capability is already there to bond 4 upstreams shouldn't VM "hit the button" and do everyone is one go right now? Surely it is a win-win and can only help VM by reducing congestion? (similar to making 8 downstreams available to everyone whether they need them or not). It would definitely give them some breathing room while they sort qam64 out.
It can break things. It's not as simple as pushing the button.

I'm not entirely sure why they are choosing to upgrade some but not others in the same areas.

If there's no congestion there are zero reasons to potentially cause problems by bonding more channels though.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote