No subject
Craig A. Haney
craig at seamless.kludge.net
Tue Jan 9 13:00:29 UTC 2001
At 03:32 -0800 2001/01/09, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>You mean you really have any other option when you want to interconnect
>few 300 Gbps backbones? :) Both mentioned boxes are in 120Gbps range
>fabric capacity-wise. If you think that's enough, i'd like to point out
>at the DSL deployment rate. Basing exchange points at something which is
>already inadequate is a horrific mistake, IMHO.
>
>Exchange points are major choke points, given that 80% or so of traffic
>crosses an IXP or bilaterial private interconnection. Despite the obvious
>advantages of the shared IXPs, the private interconnects between large
>backbones were a forced solution, purely for capacity reasons.
>
>--vadim
exchange points being choke points are more complex than that:
- backbones direct interconnect because it makes what was public
traffic stats now private. also is more financially sound model than
a 3rd party being involved. it minimize expenses.
- backbones limiting bandwidth into an Exchange Point also makes it a
choke point.
- pulling out of an Exchange or demoting it's importance to a
particular backbone means a justification for not having equitable
peering.
- knowing so much traffic goes between backbones makes it a political
tug of war that brought on direct interconnects.
- private interconnects were not a forced solution. they were for
revenue and political, not purely for capacity reasons. there has
been this notion of Tier 1,2,3 ... because of this.
- equitable financial return at an Exchange. means turning smaller
peers into customers.
i am sure i have not nearly covered everything here.
-craig
>On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Daniel L. Golding wrote:
>
>> There are a number of boxes that can do this, or are in beta. It would be
>> a horrific mistake to base an exchange point of any size around one of
>> them. Talk about difficulty troubleshooting, not to mention managing
>> the exchange point. Get a Foundry BigIron 4000 or a Riverstone
>> SSR. Exchange point in a box, so to say. The Riverstone can support the
>> inverse-mux application nicely, on it's own, as can a Foundry, when
>> combined with a Tiara box.
>>
>> Daniel Golding NetRail,Inc.
>> "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
>>
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>>
>> > There's another option for IXP architecture, virtual routers over a
>> > scalable fabric. This is the only approach which combines capacity of
>> > inverse-multiplexed parallel L1 point-to-point links and flexibility of
>> > L2/L3 shared-media IXPs. The box which can do that is in field trials
>> > (though i'm not sure the current release of software supports that
>> > functionality).
>> >
>> > --vadim
More information about the NANOG
mailing list