T3 or not to T3
freedman at netaxs.com
Mon Jul 22 05:33:57 UTC 1996
> My personal feeling is that the provision of service should be
> implemented on a separate port of the ISP's router - this provides
> both the ISP and the web farmer with a measurable point of demarcation
My personal feeling is that any Unix machines should be provisioned
on separate IP space from the routers. And that perhaps a default-
monitoring program (which we run ourselves anyway) might be run to
make sure that the machines aren't defaulting to anyone if the machines
are hooked up to the same switched fabric as the routers (which I think
is a bad idea).
I'm not arguing that getting transit via an XP fabric is a bad idea -
as long as the XP provider gets beefy enough switching and as long as
the transit providers have enough ports into their routers from the
XP fabric, it's a fine idea - much better than lots of rack-rack cables.
But boxes w/ hard drives are a different story IMO.
> independent of the IX. If the web farmer paid for an Ethernet or
> whatever interface, they'd get an Ethernet or whatever interface, and
> the bandwidth available to the customer on that port would not vary
> with other traffic as it would if the web farmer were competing with
> the ISP's peers for an interface attached to the GIGAswitch. Should
> the web farmer purchase connectivity from other ISPs, their purchases
> can be implemented as cross-connects to ISP routers (assuming the
> address space can be advertised, the topology of the web farmer's
> network can handle it, etc., etc., etc.).
> ISPs might also wish to implement certain peering relationships with
> cross-connects rather than consume bandwidth on their interface to the
> GIGAswitch. To us, cross-connects are cross-connects, whether they
> connect ISPs to web farmers or ISPs to ISPs.
More information about the NANOG