an over-the-top data center

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Mon Dec 1 13:22:50 CST 2008


On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing.  It is an ethernet
>> switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily  
>> than
>> direct interconnection - and that is all it should be.  It should not
>> be mission critical.  Treating it as such raises the cost, and
>> therefore barrier to entry, which lowers its value.
>
> Exchange points are often located in the same building as a carrier
> hotel which houses infrastructure for many ISPs and many transit  
> providers.
>
> If you consider the internet is used only by teenage males to learn
> about female anatomy (pictures and movies), then your statement is
> acceptable. But with the Internet now used for serious applications,  
> the
> focus point of a carrier hotel and exchange becomes much more mission
> critical.
>
> Ane because it is a focus point, it becomes much harder to have
> redundancy in the buildings (to provide for disaster tolerance). So  
> the
> natural avenue is to strenghten/re-inforce your one central building.

It is not.

The Internet can be mission critical.  (Well, not really, but it's  
trying.)  And for something mission critical, a single point, no  
matter how well reinforced, is not good enough.

The exchange point should _NOT_ be mission critical.  As I explained  
multiple times in the thread, if that is your only vector, your design  
is broken.  Period.  Care to argue otherwise?

And if the IXP is not your only vector, if your redundancy is greater  
than any single building however deeply it is buried, then that IXP /  
building / vector is not mission critical.  Treating it at such raises  
its price, which raises its barrier of entry, which lowers its utility.

Unless you think only NORAD-approved networks should peer?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick





More information about the NANOG mailing list