From owner-freebsd-isp  Sat Jul 12 11:00:14 1997
Return-Path: <owner-isp>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA13319
          for isp-outgoing; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orion.denverweb.net (root@sdn-ts-001coauroP15.dialsprint.net [206.133.160.34])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA13313
          for <isp@freebsd.org>; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 11:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orion (blaine@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.denverweb.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id KAA00431; Sat, 12 Jul 1997 10:54:24 -0600
Message-ID: <33C7B6BF.65E3E3FB@denverweb.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 10:54:23 -0600
From: Blaine Minazzi <bminazzi@denverweb.net>
Organization: What, me organized?
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
CC: isp@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: T1/T3 Upgrade Options?
References: <3.0.32.19970712112601.00e16210@etinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-isp@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

dennis wrote:

> It is not "penny-wise and pound foolish" to not want to spend
> $60,000. if your requirements are only 4, 6 or 8Mb/s, which is
> the case with many small and medium size ISPs. You should
> not need that equipment (and it shouldnt cost what it does),
> but there are high performance solutions at these speeds that
> will save you big money and not compromise your needs.
> 
> Dennis

I agree.  I am talking about a _real_ T-3.The full thing.  
If you only need 4, 6, or 8  Mb/s then you dont need to spend an arm and
a leg on a big honkin Cisco. Your stuff ( and the PC hardware ) is fine.
Cost efective.  Flexable.  Cheap enough to keep a complete backup system
in the closet.  

Buying a 60 thousand dollar peice of equipment for such a small amount
of bandwidth is just as stupid as the other way around, IMHO.

But, if you have a monthly overhead of of a full T-3, then the trying to
save a small PERCENTAGE of you annual operating revenues at the expense
of reliability, functionality, and throughput is pretty shortsighted. 
Some jobs _DO_ require the big iron.  Trying to make do with a peice of
equipment that is barely up to the task, is a recipie for failure.

This is just my opinion of how to run a business, not an argument on the
technical capabilities of any partiular peice of eqiupment.

I try not to over spend, but I have quit trying to save a few bucks at
the expense of reliability, quality, capacity, etc.