| Every business needs bandwidth solutions of some | | | | the geeks. |
| sort. For many businesses that require large amounts | | | | Technologically, you should consider Storage Area |
| of bandwidth finding just the right solution....from a cost | | | | Networks (SAN) if you have multiple locations in the |
| and application standpoint....can be a confusing process. | | | | same city, and the use of SAN links over IP which is |
| It doesn't have to be if you understand what to base | | | | increasingly common. Basically, the entire city becomes |
| your decision on. | | | | a vast RAID hard drive. You should also understand |
| Like anything in information technology, it really depends | | | | some of the good business reasons to adopt very |
| on how you will utilize this infrastructure. It certainly | | | | high bandwidth such as reducing the number of |
| doesn't make sense to provision high capacity | | | | over-the-Internet transactions which slow things down |
| transport links if you will use them for a small fraction | | | | and may compromise security in favour of internal |
| of the day or the traffic doesn't warrant it. | | | | intranet transactions. Also, having as few layers of |
| I think one of the hardest things about this arena is that | | | | software as possible between the hard drive and the |
| many times the people requesting the bandwidth are | | | | user is a major plus. |
| confused about what bandwidth really is. There's a | | | | Also consider the price difference between Sonet |
| misnomer that bandwidth automatically equals speed. | | | | equipment versus Ethernet. These days layer-3 |
| "Well my application is slow, I need more bandwidth". | | | | ethernet switches are more and more capable for |
| Many times if a study is done on exactly what your | | | | usage as a router. While Sonet traditionally is quite |
| needs are, it turns out to be a very different story | | | | expensive vs Ethernet (especialy for the hardware).... |
| from the initial conversation. | | | | dark fiber and ethernet solutions from carriers are |
| With a plethora of technologies out there for WAN | | | | getting broad industry support. Although I do favor |
| and Metro services, wired or wireless customers can | | | | Sonet for its better debuging capablities, error counters, |
| choose to subscribe to always on, dedicated access | | | | alarms etc. Ethernet in wide area environments seems |
| methods or go for a most cost effective model with | | | | to do the jobs as well. Ethernet would save you the |
| somewhat "shared" topologies like Multi-Protocol Label | | | | need to buy a decent router able to terminate Sonet |
| Switching. The idea here is that you have options and | | | | and give you the choice to go with a decent layer-3 |
| each solution can satisfy any number of requirements. | | | | switch. Another option is 10GigE WAN PHY.....it still has |
| There's never been a better time in the industry for | | | | all the advantages of Sonet combined with Ethernet, |
| choices. | | | | gives you the ability to use cheaper layer-3 switches, |
| The best option is the cheapest one that works. Dark | | | | looks for the carrier as a normal Sonet service and |
| Fiber and Metro Ethernet, if an option, should usually be | | | | works over long distances. |
| looked at first to establish a price for negotiating. I think | | | | To look at the tradeoffs, you'll have to start by finding |
| you should focus on negotiating techniques that work | | | | out what is available at your end user location. Within |
| to bring these bandwidths within affordable reach. | | | | North America, the alternatives include ATM OC-3/12 |
| No matter how much bandwidth you are using, you will | | | | 48, SONET (and Next Generation SONET) probably |
| get a better deal for it at a major Network Access | | | | more likely OC-12/48/192, and Metro Ethernet at 100 |
| Point (NAP) where you have more bidders for your | | | | Mbps (a little slower than OC-3), 1 Gbps (about OC-24) |
| business, and from which you can easily shift carriers, | | | | and 10 Gbps (OC-192). Things that aren't available |
| set up failovers and redundancy, etc.. Every high end | | | | need not be considered. |
| user needs their own boxes to shape traffic at the | | | | What are the availability requirements? If you are |
| NAP, and they need them in two different racks | | | | thinking of SONET, find out if it will come to your |
| connected to two different carriers. Accept the hit of | | | | premises as a star or ring or dual ring. Metro Ethernet |
| that and you'll quickly see that the ten to thirty | | | | might be faster but not necessarily physically diverse. |
| thousand dollars a typical urban company requires to | | | | Sometimes, you can be creative and use a short |
| get two boxes into a NAP (admittedly on a single dark | | | | free-space link to get access to a physically diverse |
| fiber route) pays for itself in bandwidth charges in | | | | medium. |
| pretty much a single year. Even just to PLAN to do it | | | | For more background and insights I suggest reading |
| and show your spreadsheet to your carrier, a project | | | | "WAN Survival Guide" and "Building Service Provider |
| that might cost five grand to do right, will result in more | | | | Networks" by Howard Berkowitz. Both are excellent |
| than that much per year off your bill. | | | | resources. |
| Think of it like any other high end purchase. You | | | | I have worked with many customers to design |
| demonstrate that you're not a pushover, that you have | | | | infrastructure solutions that incorporate high-end |
| options, that you understand the options and how to | | | | DWDM or CWDM connections between datacenters. |
| increase the number of options, and you bargain based | | | | Now, this is a business solution and the common user |
| on the bottom line of the cheapest solution you can | | | | would never dream of having a connection such as |
| find. When they tell you it will "cost too much to have | | | | this, available to them. Other customers that I work |
| your own boxes and dark fiber to the NAP", you snap | | | | with will incorporate leased lined anywhere from a T1 |
| back the lowest number you can justify, call it | | | | to OC3. Those connections are very much sized for |
| "insurance", and rule it out as a cost factor. When they | | | | purpose with a percentage of growth factored in. |
| tell you "we can monitor boxes far better than you | | | | The practice that I go through is to evaluate need. |
| can", leverage that into quality of service guarantees in | | | | What are you trying to accomplish? Is it transactional |
| the contract with real dollar penalties for failures or | | | | based or are you replicating data for DR? Are you |
| slowdowns. When they tell you "our facility is state of | | | | simply connecting two or more remote offices for the |
| the art", GO THERE and count up the number of | | | | purpose of a Citrix solution? Each of these questions |
| non-bulletproof windows and visible insecure perches | | | | will result in different answers when all is said and |
| that someone can shoot the servers from, grab the | | | | done. |
| corded phone and walk over to the rack, pulling it right | | | | Remeber that redundancy is ALWAYS a factor in |
| out of the wall and looking astonished: "how am I | | | | business oriented solutions. Especially as it pertains to |
| supposed to give someone instructions over the | | | | data replication and DR/HA failover to "hot" |
| phone? They can't even walk to the rack! You expect | | | | datacenters. We are starting to see more and more |
| them to scribble it down while cradling the phone in | | | | of this type of configuration. I have a few customers |
| their neck and then go over to the box and do what I | | | | that are fortunate enough to have multi-ring DWDM |
| said?!?!?!?" | | | | infrastructures to make their valuable data available in |
| Basically, you must point out every deficiency in their | | | | the unfortunate event of a disaster. |
| facility or service and refuse to acknowledge that your | | | | As corny as it sounds, I have to say that your ultimate |
| own home-built solution would have any inadequacies, | | | | solution depends on the intended usage of that |
| or that the competitors all have the same problems. In | | | | bandwidth. I would also say that there really is no |
| a high end negotiation, you must have NO mercy. | | | | generalized "ideal" bandwidth solution. It all comes down |
| By the way, once you've got a contract with your | | | | to intent and budget. With today's technology in WAN |
| carrier, you must be very nice to them, in total contrast | | | | (TCP/IP/FC/FCIP/IFCP) acceleration (Juniper, Riverbed, |
| to the way you leveraged like mad in the first | | | | Cisco), you can transfer vast amounts of data in a |
| negotiation. Don't nickel-and-dime them after you've | | | | smaller pipe. It really is cool technology but still requires |
| agreed on terms, don't let your bandwidth payments | | | | cost justification to implement. |
| get late. These people hold your crown jewels. As | | | | Whatever you decide....do your homework....be |
| mean as you are to the salespeople, be that nice to | | | | prepared....negotiate....then install and enjoy. |