avg at pluris.com
Wed Sep 17 21:34:56 UTC 1997
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Georgaphically local, not topologically.
> > A *big* difference.
> > Unless we're willing to go back to regulated monopolies geographical
> > locality makes little difference in overall traffic patterns.
> How do you say "bullshit" in Russian?
Thank you, i know how to tell "Get A Clue" in English.
> C'mon, Vadim. As the Net, and the Web in particular, grow more
> geographically dense -- IE: as there _is_ more local stuff for users to
> look at -- they _will_; people are natively more interested in that
> which is near to them geographically.
> And unless we unload that traffic from the backbones and the NAP's,
> _it_ will be what melts down the net.
There's at least one known way to build a network which has
no capacity problems at NAPs and does not break down routing
Hint: it does _not_ involve zillions of local exchanges.
Rather, it scales up capacity of relatively few exchange points.
BTW, if you can explain how to build a network which is:
a) does not involve geographical/administrative
b) can exploit natural geographical locality
and c) won't die because of routing scalability problems
we all will be very interested to learn. To my knowledge,
nobody figured that out yet.
More information about the NANOG