eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Thu Nov 14 18:31:13 UTC 2002
DD> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500
DD> From: David Diaz
DD> 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance
DD> peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product
DD> so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are
DD> using this. But apparently CFOs love it
Uebercheap longhaul would _favor_ the construction of local
Let's say I pay $100k/mo port and $10M/mo loop... obviously, I
need to cut loop cost. If an exchange brings zero-mile loops to
the table, that should reduce loop cost. Anyone serious will
want a good selection of providers, and the facility offering the
most choices should be sitting pretty.
Likewise, I agree that expensive longhaul would favor increased
local peering... but, if local loop were extremely cheap, would
an exchange be needed? It would not be inappropriate for all
parties to congregate at an exchange, but I'd personally rather
run N dirt-cheap loops across town from my private facility.
Hence I refer to an "imbalance" in loop/longhaul pricing; a large
proliferation in exchanges could be precipitated by _either_ loop
_or_ longhaul being "expensive"... and it seems expensive loop
would be a more effective driver for local exchanges.
DD> 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every
DD> 100 sq Km. VoIP might be the app. Seems to be gaining a
By the time IP packets are compressed and QOSed enough to support
voice, one essentially reinvents ATM or FR (with ATM seeming
suspiciously like FR with fixed-length cells)...
DD> great deal of traction. Since it's obvious traffic levels
DD> would sky rockets, and latency is a large concern, and there
DD> is a need to connect to the local voice TDM infrastructure,
Yes, although cost would trump latency. Once latency is "good
enough", cost rules. Would I pay a premium to reduce latency
from 50ms to 10ms for voice calls? No.
DD> local exchanging is preferred. However, many VoIP companies
DD> claim latency right now is acceptable and they are receiving
DD> no major complaints. So we are left to guess at other killer
DD> apps, video conferencing, movie industry sending movies
DD> online directly to consumers etc.
The above are "big bandwidth" applications. However, they do not
inherently require exchanges... _local_ videoconferencing, yes.
Local security companies monitoring cameras around town, yes.
Video or newscasting, yes. Distributed content, yes. (If a
traffic sink could pull 80% of its traffic from a local building
where cross-connects are reasonably priced...)
DD> 3) In order to get to the next level of peering exchanges...
[ snip ]
DD> Perhaps it's up to the key exchange companies to tie fabrics
DD> together allowing new (tier2 locations) to gain visibility to
DD> peers at other larger locations. This would allow peers at
DD> the larger locations to engage in peering discussions, or
DD> turn ups, and when traffic levels are justified a deployment
DD> to the second location begins. Problem with new locations
DD> are 'chicken and the egg.' Critical mass must be achieved
DD> before there is a large value proposition for peers.
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
More information about the NANOG