Flow based architecture in data centers(more specifically Telco Clouds)

Mon Feb 10 14:23:43 UTC 2020

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 4:15 PM Christopher Morrow
<morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:06 PM Rod Beck <rod.beck at unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
>>
>> They don't have to be related.
>>
>
> makes a cogent conversation harder :)

Srsly?! Any conversation including Cogent is harder....

W
(Sorry, couldn't resist. I tried, but failed...)

>
>>
>> I am curious about the distinction about the flow versus non-flow architecture for data centers and I am also fascinated by the separate issue of WAN architecture for these clouds.
>>
>
> WAN is probably: "least expensive option form A to B" plus some effort to standardize across your deployment. Right?
>
> Akamai is probably a good example, from what I can tell they were 'transit/peering only' until they realized their product was sending 'more bits' between deployments than to customers (in some cases). So, pushing the 'between our deployments' bits over dedicated links (be that dark, waves, other L3 transport) made sense budget-wise.
>
> (again.. just a chemical engineer and not a peering engineer, but...)
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Roderick.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:24 PM
>> To: Rod Beck <rod.beck at unitedcablecompany.com>
>> Cc: Glen Kent <glen.kent at gmail.com>; nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: Flow based architecture in data centers(more specifically Telco Clouds)
>>
>> (caution, I'm just a chemical engineer, but)
>>
>> You appear to ask one question: "What is the difference between flow
>> and non-flow architectures?"
>> then sideline in some discussion about fiber/waves vs
>> layer-3/transit/peering/x-connect
>>
>> I don't think the second part really relates to the first part of your message.
>> (I didn't put this content in-line because .. it's mostly trying to
>> clarify what you are asking Rod"
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:19 AM Rod Beck <rod.beck at unitedcablecompany.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please explain for us dumb sales guys the distinction between flow and non-flow. My question is the fundamental architecture of these clouds. We all know that Amazon is buying dark fiber and building a network based on lighting 100 and 10 gig waves on IRU and titled fiber. Same for Microsoft (I sold them in a past life some waves) and other large players.
>> >
>> > But there appear to be quite a few cloud players that rely heavily on Layer 3 purchased from Level3 (CenturyLink) and other members of the august Tier 1 club. And many CDN players are really transit + real estate operations as was Akamai until recently.
>> >
>> > It seems the threshold for moving from purchased transit plus peering to a Layer 1 and 2 network has risen over time. Many former Tier 2 ISPs pretty much gutted their private line networks as transit prices continued inexorable declines.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Roderick.
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces at nanog.org> on behalf of Glen Kent <glen.kent at gmail.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 11:02 AM
>> > To: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at nanog.org>
>> > Subject: Flow based architecture in data centers(more specifically Telco Clouds)
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Are most of the Telco Cloud deployments envisioned to be modeled on a flow based or a non flow based architecture? I am presuming that for deeper insights into the traffic one would need a flow based architecture, but that can have scale issues (# of flows, flow setup rates, etc) and was hence checking.
>> >
>> > Thanks, Glen

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf