NAP Solutions
Gregory Mirsky
gmirsky at BayNetworks.COM
Fri Nov 14 20:38:45 UTC 1997
Brian Horvitz wrote:
>
> Well, as we know WAN speeds have certainly outgrown LAN technologies. The
> is however no reason not to use WAN technologies in a local area
> environment. The scenario I had in mind was something like a Cisco 12000
> as a concentrator (I have not done NEARLY enough research on that unit to
> know if it's the right choice), and packet over sonet to either other
> units in the same room or right onto someone's WAN if they can extend
> their sonet in such a way. The concentrator units could then be connected
> onto a backbone sonet which everyone can talk across if they are not in
> the same box. This make a nice expandable solution.
>
> Brian
>
Brian,
why not to consider GigaEthernet as media of choice for NAP in
combination with Fast Ethernet
if needed?
Greg
> On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Tim Salo wrote:
>
> > > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 10:57:39 -0500 (EST)
> > > From: Brian Horvitz <horvitz at shore.net>
> > > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > > Subject: NAP Solutions
> > >
> > > Has anybody though about a packet over sonet solution for an exchange?
> > > Seems like you could get a pretty effective answer out of a GSR with OC3
> > > and OC12 interfaces...
> >
> > I think your question provides an interesting opportunity for comparing
> > SONET solutions with, for example, ATM solutions.
> >
> > First, some thoughts on a local-area interconnect.
> >
> > If you want a fully-meshed interconnect, you will need n-1 SONET
> > interfaces on each router, when "n" is the number of routers at the
> > interconnect, [assuming one router per ISP].
> >
> > You might feel that this is an excessive number of router interfaces,
> > (assuming n > 2), so you might consider creating a ring instead.
> > In this case, each router would require only two interfaces. However,
> > most packets will need to be forwarded through several routers before
> > reaching their final destination [within the interconnect]. As a result,
> > a certain amount of the capacity of your router and your interfaces will
> > be used to forward packets between your competitors.
> >
> > Obviously, there is a spectrum of configurations between a full mesh and a
> > ring. However, determining the best trade-off between the cost of
> > additional interfaces, additional bandwidth used to forward packets
> > between routers not directly connected, and additional routing
> > capacity to forward packets within the interconnect is probably
> > worthy of a Master's thesis. (Of course, you might have to write
> > another thesis every time you add another router to the interconnect.
> > Creating a general solution might be worthy of a Doctoral dissertation.)
> >
> > [Note that this assumes that no router vendor integrates a SONET mux
> > into the router. As far as I know, no router vendor has an integrated
> > SONET mux.]
> >
> > Using an ATM switch (or most any other switch, for that matter) has
> > a number of advantages. First, each router needs only one interface
> > to the interconnect. This interface should probably be as large as
> > the router can support. (This is the problem facing many of the
> > existing interconnects, namely that the router can support more than
> > 100 Mbps, but the interconnect media runs at only 100 Mbps.)
> > Second, adding additional routers is fairly straight-forward, (e.g.,
> > you don't have to add another SONET interface to every existing router,
> > in the rather unlikely event that you have a full-mesh topology).
> > Rather, you merely plug the new router into the switch. Finally, adding
> > additional capacity is probably a lot easier. Each router [ATM] interface
> > can be upgraded as that router requires additional capacity. For example,
> > an interconnect could simultaneously support both OC-3c and OC-12c
> > connections. In a similar fashion, the aggregate capacity of the
> > interconnect can be increased by swapping in a new ATM switch,
> > (rather than, for example, swapping out the FDDI interfaces on the
> > routers for gigabit ethernet interfaces).
> >
> > Now, there is a certain price for using ATM rather than SONET, namely
> > the overhead incurred by ATM. However, as I have said before, the
> > best decision criteria is an analysis of cost/performance, not
> > merely looking at overheads. In this case, you would need to compare
> > the cost of the unnecessary SONET interfaces with the cost of the
> > bandwidth used for ATM.
> >
> > So, it seems to me that SONET makes sense for a private interconnect
> > between two parties, but that a switched technology, such as ATM or
> > perhaps gigabit ethernet, makes sense when the number of parties is
> > greater than two, (like three, for example).
> >
> > Now, this same analysis can be applied in the wide area.
> >
> > The next question is, if you have decide to use ATM, whether to
> > create a local interconnect, (i.e., put the switch and all the routers
> > in one room) or to create a distributed interconnect, (e.g., leave
> > the routers distributed throughout a LATA or even throughout the country).
> > I think there are a number of good arguments both ways. Both local
> > interconnects and intra-LATA interconnects have been tried. I don't
> > know of anyone who has created a nationwide interconnect, (although
> > I think all of the original NAP proposals suggested nationwide NAPs).
> >
> > On the other hand, the question of SONET versus ATM in a wide-area
> > environment is still being explored in, for example, the Internet2 efforts.
> > I don't understand how wide-area SONET solutions are supposed to scale,
> > but perhaps someone will figure it out. Of course, another interesting
> > question is why, with services like ATM with distance-insensitive
> > pricing, one would build a regional wide-area interconnect (e.g., a
> > regional, wide-area gigapop), rather than a nationwide interconnect.
> > (Note that some claim that propagation delays are an issue in a
> > nationwide interconnect, but I believe that, e.g., routing through the
> > opposite coast to get to the adjacent city, would result from poor
> > design or configuration, rather from any inherent defect in the
> > concept of nationwide interconnects/gigapops).
> >
> > Wide-area SONET certainly has its place, depending on the relative price
> > of SONET versus ATM services, the number of locations which need to be
> > interconnected and the amount of bandwidth required. For example, in
> > a campus environment where private fiber is available, point-to-point
> > SONET solutions are easier to justify than when you need to lease SONET
> > links from a carrier.
> >
> > Hopefully, projects like Internet2 and NGI will explore both SONET and
> > ATM wide-area interconnects so we can gain a better understanding
> > of their advantages and capabilities.
> >
> > And finally, I don't know if I answered you question. But, if you do
> > decide to build a SONET interconnect, please let us know how it works.
> >
> > -tjs
> >
More information about the NANOG
mailing list