a little thought on exchanging traffic

Jay R. Ashworth jra at scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us
Wed May 20 15:51:26 UTC 1998


On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 09:51:54AM -0400, bob bownes wrote:
> It sounds alot like the multi-tiered proposal I put forth about 3 years
> ago to build local exchanges on top of frame networks in certain cities,
> then interconnect cities to regional exchanges, then interconnect the
> regional exchanges. That architecture takes advantage of traffic
> locality as well as providing a path out for non-local traffic. If the
> individual regional exchanges have a small enough number of
> participants, they are easier to manage, and should one participant have
> alot of traffic going to regional or inter-regional exchange, you simply
> install a PVC to there. There is some breakpoint for scaling however...

Naaaah, Bob.  That would mean that there might actually be some
geographic locality of reference to Internet traffic -- you know, my
telnet from Tampa to Auburndale, Florida, might actually not go via
Orlando, Atlanta, DC, and MAE-East in New Jersey.

And that would never be acceptable.

Just ask Sprint, AT&T, GTE/BBN, and MCI.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra at baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff             Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued
The Suncoast Freenet      "Two words: Darth Doogie."  -- Jason Colby,
Tampa Bay, Florida             on alt.fan.heinlein             +1 813 790 7592

Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com



More information about the NANOG mailing list