William Allen Simpson
bsimpson at morningstar.com
Tue Oct 24 03:01:40 UTC 1995
> From: Sean Doran <smd at icp.net>
> A couple quick points: the place to go to for this kind
> of thing should be your direct service provider, who hopefully
> has some means of communicating with upstream and peer providers
> when things are going wrong somehow, or at least might be
> able to give you some additional information.
It should not surprise you that I am no stranger to the folks at my
"direct service provider", on either the local or national sides....
> NANOG and other lists aren't appropriate places to discuss
> specific problems. OTOH, general problems, such as how big
> the Internet is and how saturated well-known-things seem to
> be and what might be done about it, could be OK here.
IMnsHO, the _only_ way to discuss engineering is with specific problems!
NANOG is damn well the appropriate place to discuss _this_ specific
problem! The problem is trying to cram the entire world's traffic
through a few NAPs, instead of many MIXs. The problem is the outright
failure of the design of the first NAPs, particularly the MAE-East
"ethernet" and the "ATM" NAPs. The problem is scaling, and the
_cheapness_ of the commercial providers in failing to provide widespread
interconnections with each other.
> I should also note that Sprint and MCI are in the final
> phases of negotiating direct point-to-point peerings which
> will pop up in several areas, and improve connectivity
> between SprintLink and InternetMCI. You wouldn't be far off
> in expecting this to become something of a trend,
> particularly among a small number of the large heavy-traffic
> providers, for whom the NAP/MAE/FIX concepts and models
> don't seem to be scaling well in practice.
You mean, we might end up with a Network instead of a Treework!?!?
Bill.Simpson at um.cc.umich.edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
More information about the NANOG