Selfish routing

Mon Apr 28 01:01:59 UTC 2003

alex at yuriev.com wrote:
> 
> Do you have more than one exit right now? Do you push around 100Mbit/sec to
> each of those providers? Since you aparently have the money, did you
> negotiate dials around $50 Mbit/sec exit on giges and OC-12 with 100Mbit
> CIR?
> 
You assume things not in fact, primarily that I have the money to 
increase capacity. Burstable costs more than full rate. One can use 3 
lower end routers to adequately handle 3 OC3 circuts much more cost 
effectively than buying a single high end router to handle OC-12, gig-e, 
etc. In addition, if the circuits are handled off at different 
geographic locations, you will need 3 high end routers to handle the 
OC-12, gig-e, etc, which increases the price exponentially.

You also assumed that OC-12 and Gig-e is available in the geographic 
region and that the interconnected networks can support such throughput 
in that portion of their network.

> I dont know which world do you live in, but today the sales people will beg
> for 100Mbit/sec CIRs on OC-12 links just to meet the quotas. So, why dont
> you get those 100Mbit/sec CIRs on OC-12c?
> 
I live in rural America. I provide access for rural America. There is 
only one public exchange point close buy and it is over 100 miles from 
my nearest pop (and the exchange has it's own problems). Capacity from 
various networks is limited, and it can take over 6 months to get the 
carriers upgraded to handle a new OC3, much less OC-12 or gig-e.

> Why is your 100Mbit/sec delivered over OC-3s when with 100Mbit/sec CIRs you
> can get OC-12 ports from basically everyone?
> 
Your perspective is skewed. OC-12 ports are not available from everyone, 
everywhere. Obtaining, lighting, and maintaining fiber for long haul is 
not inexpensive.

> Network planning *is* about not making mistakes.
> 
Only in an ideal senario. Cost has a lot to do with it. I've watched 
numerous companies enter Chapter 11 due to spending too much in 
capacity. The perfect network is not the perfect business model.

> Performance does not depend on cost effective interconnects. They are NOT
> related.

No, but if you do not have cost effective interconnects, you will not 
have a business. Operating at a guaranteed loss is stupid at best.

> Rubbish again. The fundamental problem with this entire industry is that
> some very clever marketing and sales people managed to convince entire bunch
> of rather bright geeks that networks are complicated. The truth is, it is
> not, however, since you have been told that it is over a million times, you
> want to believe that it is.
> 
To use your word, "Rubbish." Your opinions are based upon specific 
business models and available resources. It does not take into account 
that costs do limit available resources. In many cases, money itself is 
the resource that is lacking. Marketing and sales people do not hold 
sway over everyone, but many of those people are also shrewed in 
business and recognize that concessions must be made to maintain 
profitability.

-jack