High bandwidth WAN technologies

[mammador]

I know there is SONET and MPLS, but are there others?

A neighbour and I own three stores separated by 100 miles distance, and need to hook up cameras, locks, and all other IP-based items.

 

[Cstefan]

Pray for dark fibre?

 

[Fardringle]

What's the budget and how much bandwidth do you actually need? Many 'regular' ISPs have pretty decent speeds on their business connections for a relatively low price. If you need more bandwidth and/or guaranteed SLAs, then you could easily spend thousands of dollars per month...

 

[mammador]

Each LAN/CAN needs about several hundred Mbps. This includes current and scalable needs.

 

[Fardringle]

Several hundred megabit? How many cameras and other devices are you using? An IP camera can easily get by with a couple megabits with a REALLY high resolution picture. An average 8 camera security system works just fine on a 2-4 mbps connection. Locks/security systems take virtually no bandwidth at all. Unless you plan to be constantly synchronizing large databases and file systems across the network, I think you are significantly overestimating your needs.

 

[ScottMac]

AT&T has GiGaMAN, you can get something like 100mbps CIR, with burst to a gig. It's delivered on an Ethernet switch and you take it from there.

I'm pretty sure the other carriers have similar service, and the prices are probably competitive. Watch for contract terms, Service Level Agreement (SLA), and the upload speeds; some services are assymetrical

 

[kevnich2]

Each LAN/CAN needs about several hundred Mbps. This includes current and scalable needs.

I'd sure like to know what you'd actually need several hundred mb/s for security systems and cameras?? Either there's something you're leaving out, or as another poster said, you're over-estimating your actual bandwidth needs? We have around 20 IP camera's at 9 of our offices spread across 5 counties and only have 10mb/s fiber connections and it suits us just fine.

 

[Demo24]

AT&T has GiGaMAN, you can get something like 100mbps CIR, with burst to a gig. It's delivered on an Ethernet switch and you take it from there.

I'm pretty sure the other carriers have similar service, and the prices are probably competitive. Watch for contract terms, Service Level Agreement (SLA), and the upload speeds; some services are assymetrical

Is this an 'eia' circuit? I only just heard about this when I learned wind stream offers such services up to 1gbps.


For several hundred megabit you'll probably be looking at fiber service from some ISP, understand that's going to cost thousands per month for such a connection.

 

[ScottMac]

Is this an 'eia' circuit? I only just heard about this when I learned wind stream offers such services up to 1gbps.


For several hundred megabit you'll probably be looking at fiber service from some ISP, understand that's going to cost thousands per month for such a connection.

I'm not sure.

The last I heard was that AT&T (and probably others) offered basically two high-speed metro services, GiGaMAN and something else (I forgot the name), with the difference being whether it was exclusive / private or multiplexed (i.e., VLAN over shared bandwidth).

I'll look into it when I get back to work (Wednesday4/3) and re-post with better info.

My office is getting 100Mbps (burst to a gig) in a few weeks, so I can let you know how it works as well.

 

[Phynaz]

Each LAN/CAN needs about several hundred Mbps. This includes current and scalable needs.

We have offices with thousands of employee's connected with less than that. I'm not sure you know what your needs are.

 

[heymrdj]

Sounds to me like you need to move to a centralized architecture if you seriously need that kind of bandwidth. Run servers/endpoints out of a datacenter where high concentrations of bandwidth are available much cheaper and then connect by business links from the branches.

 

[drebo]

MPLS isn't a connection type. It's a protocol suite designed to obfuscate the L3 address of a packet from the routing engine. It is much more, but that's what it does at its simplest. Other features like fast reroute and TE are of more concern to the telco than to the customer, though.

The issue you run into with Metro-ethernet based services is the geographic designation of the "Metro Area". Basically, each provider has a different ring topology and divides the "Metro Areas" in very different ways. For instance, we use one company where going 80 miles south puts us in a different "metro area" and the prices doubles versus going 110 miles west which is considered the same "metro area." So, your 100 miles could either be very cheap (like $800/mo for 100mbps) or very expensive (like $1000/mo for 4mbps).

You could also use TDM-based connections (DS3s are ~46mbps) or SONET (OC3s are ~155mbps). Either of those types of connections will have predictable pricing based on the distance between the two LSOs. CLEC pricing on this type of service will be much different than ILEC pricing, especially if the two ends are supported by different ILECs. The connections may end up multiplexed over CLEC facilities for the long haul as well, which will cut down on pricing.

There's lots of options, but I would closely examine your actual needs, because it could potentially be very, very expensive.

Also, your options will vary heavily by geographic location.

 

[mammador]

We're looking at an eventual total of 2000 cameras. So to include all scalability needs, this is why the bandwidth requirement is so high. We're also looking at workstations and a whole host of other TCP/IP stuff.

 

[heymrdj]

We're looking at an eventual total of 2000 cameras. So to include all scalability needs, this is why the bandwidth requirement is so high. We're also looking at workstations and a whole host of other TCP/IP stuff.

Even more reason for going to a data center. No point hosting 2000 cameras out of multiple locals. Run the cameras out of separate areas to a data center, crunch data from there.

I'm guessing you're talking about a remote security service.

 

[drebo]

We're looking at an eventual total of 2000 cameras. So to include all scalability needs, this is why the bandwidth requirement is so high. We're also looking at workstations and a whole host of other TCP/IP stuff.

At that point, I'd wonder if local DVRs might not be the appropriate solution. That way, all that data isn't going over the WAN, except when you need it to.

 

[AFurryReptile]

2000 cameras over the WAN sounds like a bad idea. Is there not any cameras out there that save to a local server, which interfaces with a main "hub"? That way video could be pulled on-demand, not constantly...

 

[theevilsharpie]

At that point, I'd wonder if local DVRs might not be the appropriate solution. That way, all that data isn't going over the WAN, except when you need it to.

This. 2000 cameras going over a WAN is nuts, and there's no reason to do it unless local recording is impractical.