<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/Sep/15 11:37, Frank Kuse wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:DUB119-W1200F06F90B6BC59F5E2FCA14E0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Hello Mark,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Currently we don't have capacity on our Core for STM64 and
however having multiple STM16 also gives us good resilience.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What is your topology?<br>
<br>
Are you running long SDH circuits from your main base to some other
country where you're buying IP Transit, type-thing, or are you
purchasing IP locally within country?<br>
<br>
If the former, do you have your own routers in the remote country?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:DUB119-W1200F06F90B6BC59F5E2FCA14E0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Our internet capacity is increasing everyday and even
though we have plan to upgrade our core routers this year.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So is the current issue the link size, or the routers needed to
support your ultimate link size?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:DUB119-W1200F06F90B6BC59F5E2FCA14E0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>We will still have the issues of dealing with two cable
providers but multiple internet peers and having to load
balance in this same manner and hence a solution hunt being
pursued now.. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are these 8x providers all upstreams, peers, or a combination? If
the all upstreams, do you do any kind of peering anywhere in your
network?<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>