Inter-exchange media types

Paul Ferguson pferguso at
Fri Apr 26 04:16:18 UTC 1996

Wolfgang brings up a good point; there are certainly regional interests
in creating exchange points within certain geographic areas. This is
a Good Thing (tm). We should encourage this is every way, shape or form.
Especially in SE Asia, and other areas where traffic traverses already
congested links back to the US just to reach its final destination in
SE Asia.

I realize this is borderline NANOG topic, but it really *does* affect
North American network Ops when traffic has to transit NA links
just to reach its final destination 25 km away from where it originated.
This is insane.

While  I do not mean to point out SE Asia as the most violent offender
of this transient problem, the problem exists elsewhere in the world;
SE Asia just happens the be the most handy real-world reference.

Food for thought.

- paul

At 10:48 AM 4/25/96 -0700, Wolfgang Henke wrote:

>     The problem for the major exchanges may soon be what to do when the
>     gigaswitch runs out of bandwidth.
>It seems to suggest more exchange points; like for example the recent
>interest in new regional packet exchanges in California and Utah.
>When large 'tier 1' providers run into bottleneck problems, do we 
>have to rely more on the intermediate and smaller ones to connect us?

More information about the NANOG mailing list