concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]

Tue Jul 6 12:46:49 UTC 2004

In a message written on Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:32:14AM +0000, vijay gill wrote:
> Paul, I think you took a left at the pass and went down the wrong road
> here.   I am not saying ethernet doesn't scale or even vni/pni doesn't
> scale, but the mentality embodied in the approach "throw it over the
> wall" doesn't bode well if you are to scale.

"Throw it over the wall" can be interpreted many ways.

Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls,
and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way
to think about it.

However, there are lots of telco MMR's, with either rows of racks
or cages where every party runs their own fiber.  Typically trays
are provided in the colo cost, and the parties run the fiber in the
trays and use the fiber management, label their jumpers, and more
often than not pull out unused cables.  If cages are involved
"dropping the cable over the cage" is a common practice.  Walking into
these facilities you find they are generally neat and organized.

I believe the problem Vijay is referencing isn't "throw it over the
wall", but rather where people have to hide the fact that they are
throwing it over the wall.  When some colo providers want to do
things like charge a 0-mile local loop for a fiber across the room
people think it's too much, and run their own "over the wall" fiber.
However since it's technically not allowed it's hidden, unlabeled,
abandoned when unused, and creates a huge mess.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20040706/cad61c09/attachment.sig>