Name New York $os %ngeles Chi(ago Dallas Philadelphia *ashington+ DC ,eattle -iami %tlanta .oston Den/er Ro(hester+ NY .oulder+ C0 an(ou/er+ .C 2oronto 2oronto -e3i(o Cit+ -e3i(o Rio de 5aneiro
,e/eral sites 78 (oordinates were deri/ed rom $at$on Data : City .oulder -e3i(o Cit .uenos %ires 2oron 2oronto+ to+ Canada an(ou/er+ an(ou/er+ .C+ Canada •
•
•
•
Latitude Longitude 4!; !!< N 1!); 1"< * 19; #4< N !99; 1#< * &4; &)< , !)'; #9< * 4&; &9= N !9; #&= * 49; 1"= N 1#&; != *
V H 4"! )9) 11#9& &419 1""& 69"") 49'1 #4'' )9'! 9!
>a(h (it has 11 ?ran(h lo(ations whi(h must ?e networked to a 1#th ?a(k?one (onne(ted site@ 2he ?a(k?one ?a(k?one sites need need to ?e (onne(ted (onne(ted /ia /ia inter6(it inter6(it links whi(h are arranged in a ull meshed ?a(k?one@ >a(h (it=s a((ess network ollows the same traA( pattern and qualit+ relia?ilit+ ser/i(e+ inno/ation+ pri(e and Be3i?ilit must ?e weighed e/enl@ 2wo 2wo designs must must ?e su?mitted su?mitted one ?eing ?eing the least least (ost and the other ?eing the ?est o/erall (hoi(e@
%lthough the 2our design has a 9@& per(ent higher relia?ilit it (osts 1@" per(ent more than the C-,2 design@ .oth designs ha/e less than a )! per(ent ma3imum link utilization+ whi(h allows some Be3i?ilit or ?andwidth in(reases as well as minimizing dela@ %dditionall+ the C-,2 design has a lower a/erage hop (ount whi(h redu(es network dela@ %ll (osts are ?ased on )"M $eases $ines@
Figure 1 C-,2G
Figure # C-,2G
Figure & 2ourG
Figure 4 2ourG
Conclusion Intra-City Design
For the lo(al intra6(it networks I re(ommend the C-,2 design@ It is ?oth the (heapest and the least delaed network@ 2he 2our network is more relia?le ?ut not worth the signi(ant ump in pri(e@ 1 (ities 3 O#4+"#!@!!G J 11 sites per (it 3 O#!!! per routerG O44!+)4! "ack#one Network Designs Inter-City! •
Thank you for interesting in our services. We are a non-profit group that run this website to share documents. We need your help to maintenance this website.