value of co-location

mike mn at tremere.ios.com
Tue Jan 23 03:18:27 UTC 1996


On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Sean Doran wrote:

> | Bottom line: about 270,000 pps per port, 14 microsec. 

... how about 4 microseconds latency and 15 million cells/sec?
(for the same price)

Mike

(nsc ers does that I guess)


> | forwarding latency AND superior reliability. The choice
> | for NAP designers everywhere :)-
> 
> Bilal, I think you missed a word.
> 
> "Successful" seems to have been omitted between "choice" and "for".
> 
> Some NAP designers opted for packet shredders, and might
> even be getting some thousands of pps total traffic (so they
> claim, but then they seem to count very local (i.e.,
> cross-town) ATM connectivity as "NAP" traffic), as opposed to
> the low tens of thousands of packets per second *per port*,
> with much of that being traffic between sites with about 30
> times the delay * bandwidth buffering requirements.
> 
> Of course, the fact that the switched FDDI exchange points
> have proven to be more reliable in practice than the ATM
> exchange points have -- even with a fraction of the load --
> tends to do nothing to diminish the religious fervour of
> the people who assert that ATM NAPs are the ultimate single
> answer to the needs of the Internet.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if their brains were cellified and passed
> through an ATM NAP...
> 
> 	Sean.
> 

----------------------------------------------------------
                                                   IDT
Michael F. Nittmann                             ---------
Senior Network Architect                        \       /
(201) 928 1000 xt 500                            -------
(201) 928 1888 FAX                                \   /
mn at tremere.ios.com                                 ---
                                                    V 
                                                   IOS




More information about the NANOG mailing list