Skip to content

SONET Payload Overhead Sheet

SONET Payload Overhead Sheet published on No Comments on SONET Payload Overhead Sheet

When working with SONET you must always remember that the bandwidth you think you will receive (Line Rate) is actually not the bandwidth you will be able to push through (Payload Bandwidth) due to overhead in the signaling protocol. Below is a table I made that describes throughput rates:

SONET/SDH Designations and bandwidths

SONET Optical Carrier level SONET frame format SDH level and frame format Line Rate Overhead Payload Bandwidth
OC-1 STS-1 STM-0

51.840 Mbps

1.728 Mbps

50.112 Mbps

OC-3 STS-3 STM-1

155.520 Mbps

6.912 Mbps

148.608 Mbps

OC-12 STS-12 STM-4

622.080 Mbps

20.736 Mbps

601.344 Mbps

OC-24 STS-24

1.244160 Gbps

41.472 Mbps

1.202208 Gbps

OC-48 STS-48 STM-16

2.488320 Gbps

82.944 Mbps

2.405376 Gbps

OC-192 STS-192 STM-64

9.953280 Gbps

442.368 Mbps

9.510912 Gbps

OC-768 STS-768 STM-256

39.813120 Gbps

1.327104 Gbps

38.486016 Gbps



Network Tools To Use

Network Tools To Use published on 1 Comment on Network Tools To Use

Network guys need tools to help them out during the hectic days….I’ve compiled a list of good tools that a network engineer should have to make the job easier.

Mac Tools

  • HomeBrew
    • brew cask install <see below>
      • pycharm-ce
      • sublime-text
      • iterm2
      • wireshark
      • wireshark-chmodbpf
    • brew install <see below>
      • ansible
      • cdpr
      • git
      • hashcat
      • iperf
      • lldpd
      • nmap
      • python
      • python3
      • subnetcalc
      • tcptraceroute
      • telnet
      • wireshark
      • wget
      • tree
  • tcpping (see blog for file and installation instructions)
  • OmniGraffle Pro (for creating Visio Diagrams)
  • Virtualization (Choose one below)

Windows Tools

Linux Tools

Mac / Linux / Windows Tools

Open EIGRP…Why Bother?

Open EIGRP…Why Bother? published on No Comments on Open EIGRP…Why Bother?

So Cisco apparently is releasing Open Standards based EIGRP.

Of course there is a catch…if you want certain functions (stub, areas, etc…) you have to go Cisco for said enhancements.

Anyways would love to hear what people think here.

Is another routing protocol worth it? How much effort do you think the industry will put into place to have things just work nicely?

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Palo Alto (PA-200) Initial Thoughts

Palo Alto (PA-200) Initial Thoughts published on No Comments on Palo Alto (PA-200) Initial Thoughts
I got my PA-200 at home last night and played around with it.
To me it feels like the GUI intuition of an ASA and the CLI of JunOS combined into one (best of both worlds).
So granted I turned on all functionality in the lab but that’s running for a total of 4 people so I can’t see load stress tests but it works really well!
Pros I can see right off the bat in the environment:
  • Does URL Filtering (Cost Savings and management savings overhead reduction)
  • USER-ID gives you much more granularity about user utilization
  • APP-ID gives you information about app signatures and security utilization.
  • Spyware/Malware/AV/URL protection at the network level
  • Simple to figure out if you know ASA/JunOS configurations
  • IPS capabilities
  • Simplifying management can give you a great ROI potential
  • Many other features
Concerns are:
  • All in one devices…I have yet to have “good luck” with all in one devices. I’ll be trying to generate a packet flood scenario in the home lab to see what load looks like with all features turned on shortly. It won’t be 100% real world but with the tools I have it’s the closest I can get. I’ll also try to find some lab results accordingly.
I will be setting up a new lab between my ASA, SRX, and PA shortly to do some testing and configuration example during my free time…and of course will be sharing it out to followers accordingly.
Stay tuned!
FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather