On Thu, 28 April 2005 18:57:53 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
At the moment, the US IX's largely price their ports as high as the market
will possibly bear (and then sometimes a few bucks more just as a kick in
the teeth)
Yeah, what's the issue? US public peering ports are absurdly
From: Alexander Koch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
As another matter I do not believe in public peering at all
when you have flows to a single peer that are ore than half
of a full GE. Been there, was not at all nice. I guess more
and more operators will have less and less public IX ports,
and we
happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective
other IX...
That sounds more like a planning issue than anything else. If you
have traffic going through a pipe, then you need to make sure you have
somewhere else to send it. If you are managing your peers properly,
private
With public peering you simply never know how much spare
capacity your peer has free.
So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
for PI or transit either
And would you expect your
peer with 400 Mbit/s total to have 400 reserved on his AMSIX
port for you when you see 300
On Fri, 29 April 2005 13:24:06 +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
With public peering you simply never know how much spare
capacity your peer has free.
So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
for PI or transit either
For PI I know how much spare I have towards them,
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:08:13PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
With public peering you simply never know how much spare
capacity your peer has free.
You also never know with private peering: Backbone links.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
With public peering you simply never know how much spare
capacity your peer has free.
So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
for PI or transit either
For PI I know how much spare I have towards them, taking for
granted they can move the traffic.
That's
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
On Fri, 29 April 2005 13:04:05 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
and we happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective other
IX...
That sounds more like a planning issue than anything else. If you have
traffic going through a pipe,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Jay Patel wrote:
I have heard rumors that SD has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a
In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it comes
to critical backbone infrastructures.
That, or a sign
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:11:40PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it
I have heard rumors that SD has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
well, they've sure been having fun up at the six in seattle
randy
To power the IPv6 networks of refridgerators, ovens, and light
switches,
as well as your 3G video conferencing phone
None of these applications have any requirement for peering every 100km2.
I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my
house's firewall and only
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
None of these applications have any requirement for peering every 100km2.
I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my
house's firewall and only talk using link-local addresses anyways.
Do you know how much traffic the high resolution
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:43:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Do you know how much traffic the high resolution MPEG4 video/audio stream
from an oven uses!?
I do believe MPEG4 supports delta compression between frames. If there's
enough delta between frames that you have any significant traffic,
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:43:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Do you know how much traffic the high resolution MPEG4 video/audio stream
from an oven uses!?
I do believe MPEG4 supports delta compression between frames. If there's
enough delta
Thus spake Michael C. Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:00:48AM +0200, Petri Helenius scribbled:
|
| I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
| 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with
population
| greater than 50K in a 100 sq
Thus spake Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2:45 PM -0600 2002/11/24, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
None of these applications have any requirement for peering every
100km2.
I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my
house's firewall and only talk using link-local
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:00:48AM +0200, Petri Helenius scribbled:
|
| I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
| 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
| greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a neutral exchange point
|
Michael C. Wu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 10:00:48AM +0200, Petri Helenius scribbled:
|
| I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
| 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
| greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Jere Retzer wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Any point in the US is within 25ms RTT (or less) of a major exchange;
eliminating this 25ms of latency will have no effect on VoIP unless you're
already near the 250ms RTT limit for other reasons.
25 MS is assuming that the
Thus spake Jere Retzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in most cases that I've
seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't seem
to do as well as the promises.
Someone in the engineering group of a promising local ISP once told me
/resilience/
- Original Message -
From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, November 18, 2002 0:55 am
Subject: Re: Simulated disaster exercise? Re: PAIX
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The usual response was it only affected the public exchange
fabric
My apologies. This was not intended to go out to the list.
- Dan
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
Paul,
Not sure if you are currently in a position to answer this...
With the impending SD buyout of some of PAIX's assets, do you see PAIX
Atlanta as a going concern? I know SD
daniel wrote:
With the impending SD buyout of some of PAIX's assets, do you see PAIX
Atlanta as a going concern? I know SD owns an adjacent floor at 56
Marieta. Do you think they will hold on to both?
until the bankruptcy court's auction runs its course, we don't know who the
new owner of
You should move to the Atlanta NAP. It is designed to withstand a plane crashing into
the building. BTW, Netrail still owes me money.
- Nathan Stratton
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
Paul,
Not sure if you are currently in a position to answer this...
With the impending SD
Get over Netrail already Nathan. Enough years have passed...
-ren
At 08:48 AM 11/18/2002 -0800, you wrote:
You should move to the Atlanta NAP. It is designed to withstand a plane
crashing into the building. BTW, Netrail still owes me money.
- Nathan Stratton
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Daniel
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:48:54 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You should move to the Atlanta NAP. It is designed to withstand a plane crash
ing into the building.
I think Daniel Golding was more worried about an accountant crashing
into the building
msg06799/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
Thus spake David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree with everything said Stephen except the part about the
medical industry. There are a couple of very large companies doing
views over an IP backbone down here. Radiology is very big on
networking. They send your films or videos over the
Is this sort of radiology data sent over private lines or the public
internet? What are the bandwidth demands?
Not a good reason for extensive local peering, but a very interesting
application.
- Dan
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I
Stephen Sprunk wroteI meant my reply to be
directed only at "telemedecine", where the patient is athome and consults
their general practitioner or primary care physician viabroadband for things
like the flu or a broken arm. While there's lots of talkabout this in
sci-fi books, there's no
Actually I got to sit with a company deploying this as a product, and
I was impressed. Right now, it's all run over *gulp* dsl. But they
are moving towards tunnels on the open internet.
My cousin actually does work in the field and when it's working, it's
impressive. When there is a glitch
Any idea how large these images are? I seem to recall that
they are massive, given ultra-hi-rez data
(Are they attaching them to lookOut mail ;-?)
And the radiologist may look for a few seconds at best so he
is NOT going to want to wait
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL
I just asked, and you can video clip images,...85megs is typical
At 12:46 -0500 11/18/02, David Lesher wrote:
Any idea how large these images are? I seem to recall that
they are massive, given ultra-hi-rez data
(Are they attaching them to lookOut mail ;-?)
And the radiologist may look
Thus spake Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this sort of radiology data sent over private lines or the public
internet? What are the bandwidth demands?
Not a good reason for extensive local peering, but a very interesting
application.
I've only seen companies pushing this data around
David Diaz replied to my comments
Concerning latency
Well the bingo latency number used a lot in voice is
50ms. Im simplifing without getting into all the details, but that's an
important number. As far as VoIP goes, I think higher latency is ok, it's
more important to have "consistent"
Vadim Antonov wrote:
People are doing various kinds of video over Internet 1; works
fine.Then I must be doing it all wrong because I've never
had much luck. Maybe it is a function of the origin and destination location +
network. Since Portland is not a top 25 market our service has never
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Any point in the US is within 25ms RTT (or less) of a major
exchange; eliminating this 25ms of latency will have no effect on VoIP unless
you're already near the 250ms RTT limit for other reasons.
25 MS is assuming that the only delay is due to the speed of light. Add
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Stephen Sprunk said:
BW, of course, depends on how fast you want the transfers to go. The film files
are in the hundreds of MB range, and providers are upgrading from FT1 FR to FT3
ATM at major sites.
The answer is not wait at all...
See,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:13:48AM -0800, Jere Retzer wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Any point in the US is within 25ms RTT (or less) of a major exchange; eliminating
this 25ms of latency will have no effect on VoIP unless you're already near the 250ms
RTT limit for other reasons.
25
Jared Mauch wrote:
True.
As far as VoIP goes, take 2 (digital/pcs/gsm/whatnot) cell phones
(preferably on different carriers, or even the same if you want to see it)
and call the other phone. Check out the delay in there. People who
think that VoIP needs low delay don't realize the
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, David Lesher wrote:
Depends. They can also be small. I recently was given 1 hour to ship
X-rays and composite MRIs for a 2nd opinion. I was told by the
radiologist to take the printed pix, get a late model digital camera and
hold the pix up a window with no tree or
Jere Retzer wrote:
Vadim Antonov wrote:
People are doing various kinds of video over Internet 1; works fine.
Then I must be doing it all wrong because I've never had much luck.
Maybe it is a function of the origin and destination location +
network. Since Portland is not a top 25 market our
Title: Re: PAIX
Well... remember it's speed of light THROUGH fiber which isnt the
same, its actually a bit slower then c
Coast to coast you should see 35 - 65ms depending on the
route.
We've all had this thread about router overhead. If there
is a congestions point in the middle with buffering
David Diaz I just asked, and "you can video
clip images,...85megs is typical"At 12:46 -0500 11/18/02, David
Lesher wrote:Any idea how large these images are? I seem to recall
thatthey are massive, given ultra-hi-rez data(Are
they attaching them to lookOut mail ;-?)And the radiologist
Actually the way it seems to work is head over to the local server,
and the radiologist goes through several patients at a time, taking
not of any notations the techie made on the film. I do not think
most are emergencies or code blues, just someone coming in with a
pain etc. 5min probably
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
In the real world however, yes, off several dsl links Im seeing those
levels to various sites, I think it's more a factor of congested
peering links or traffic aggregation at a hub. People arent spending
the money to upgrade links right now.
I
David Diaz Actually the way it seems to work is head
over to the local server, and the radiologist goes through several patients
at a time, taking not of any notations the techie made on the film. I
do not think most are emergencies or code blues, just someone coming in with
a pain etc.
Wow, well Im in the SE. Matter of fact, I did get adsl and sdsl from
2 different providers on the same line. Maybe I can multihome ;-)
Telocity seems to be doing a decent job lately, however they seemed
to be doing some maint yesterday as it was the 1st time I noticed any
issues. Oh
Thus spake Jere Retzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Any point in the US is within 25ms RTT (or less) of a major exchange;
eliminating this 25ms of latency will have no effect on VoIP unless you're
already near the 250ms RTT limit for other reasons.
Can you please upgrade to a MUA
In the 1990's the MAEs and Gigaswitches would give us an unscheduled
failure of a major exchange point on a regular basis, which let us
demostrate our disaster recovery capabilities. With the improved
reliability, i.e. the PAIXes haven't had a catastrophic failure, we
haven't had as many
I definitely would NOT want to see my doctor over a video link when I need
him. The technology is simply not up to providing realistic telepresense,
and a lot of diagnostically relevant information is carried by things like
smell and touch, and little details. So telemedicine is a poor
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Jere Retzer wrote:
Maybe it is a function of the origin and destination location + network.
Since Portland is not a top 25 market our service has never been very
good that's why we started an exchange
Yep, Intenet service quality is very uneven; and it does not seem to
for my voip network/peers, i can withstand rtt's of around 600ms - granted
the quality sucks at that sort of latency, but data/ip routes into some
of the less-than-developed places in the world are crap at best, and any
phone is better than none
Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon,
Vadim Antonov wrote:I definitely would NOT want to see my
doctor over a video link when I needhim. The technology is simply
not up to providing realistic telepresense,and a lot of diagnostically
relevant information is carried by things likesmell and touch, and
little details. So
A much more real world example is in Heart medicine. I worked on a system
that used ds1's between hospitals. Say you have hospital A which is a
major institution and h ou have hospital B which is more remote and has
fewer skilled Doctors etc. Using a standard such as Dicom a Dr in
Hospital B.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Jere Retzer wrote:
It's potentially even more important with elderly shut-ins, because
bringing them in can be difficult and expensive and their immune
systems are typically weaker so you should try to minimize their
exposure to people with contagious diseases.
What
Which is worse - the marketeers that invent performance fiction like
that, or the customers who go chasing after a lower number without any
analysis of how that number is determined?
Customers because, the are the ones which eventually make the choice and
pay the bill. As long as there is
On Sun, Nov 17, 2002 at 12:10:43AM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
The usual response was it only affected the public exchange fabric, not
any private point-to-point circuits between providers through the same
facility.
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:45:07PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
In the 1990's the MAEs and Gigaswitches would give us an unscheduled
failure of a major exchange point on a regular basis, which let us
demostrate our disaster recovery capabilities. With the improved
reliability, i.e. the PAIXes
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The usual response was it only affected the public exchange fabric, not
any private point-to-point circuits between providers through the same
facility.
But if we're going to compare this to MAE Gigaswitch failures, shouldn't
we be
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Jere Retzer wrote:
Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in most cases that
I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world
doesn't seem to do as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off local
IP exchanges will
- While we're on the topic of local video, what happens when
television migrates to IP networks?
Why should it? There's a cheap, ubiquitous, widely deployed broadcasting
medium already. I never understood network integration for the sake of
network integration.
That medium only
- While we're on the topic of local video, what happens when
television migrates to IP networks?
Why should it? There's a cheap, ubiquitous, widely deployed broadcasting
medium already. I never understood network integration for the sake of
network integration.
Primarily because it
speaking of paix, for those of you in atlanta (ietf) this week, i'm
going to do a couple of site walkthroughs. send me e-mail if interested.
--
Paul Vixie
In the 1990's the MAEs and Gigaswitches would give us an unscheduled
failure of a major exchange point on a regular basis, which let us
demostrate our disaster recovery capabilities. With the improved
reliability, i.e. the PAIXes haven't had a catastrophic failure, we
haven't had as many
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
In the 1990's the MAEs and Gigaswitches would give us an unscheduled
failure of a major exchange point on a regular basis, which let us
demostrate our disaster recovery capabilities. With the improved
reliability, i.e. the PAIXes haven't had a
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 08:45:07PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
With the improved reliability, i.e. the PAIXes haven't had a
catastrophic failure, we haven't had as many opportunities to
demonstrate how well we can handle a disaster at those locations.
July 31st 2002, this list:
2121 Jul
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
July 31st 2002, this list:
2121 Jul 31 Herb Leong ( 4) Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump?
How quickly we forget. :)
The usual response was it only affected the public exchange fabric, not
any private point-to-point circuits
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 10:00:07PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
July 31st 2002, this list:
2121 Jul 31 Herb Leong ( 4) Is the PAIX Palo Alto taking a dump?
How quickly we forget. :)
The usual response was it only affected
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner
or later, you will have to compete with someone who believes:
Good
Fast
Cheap
we do all
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:48:17 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its possible/likely that what Paul is saying may happen, but it requires
a lot of locality-specific high-bandwidth applications (none exist now or
in demand now) and technologies that make it possible (cost-effective) to
Anyone that calls me honey is in question.
It's standard, you cant have everything in life. You attempt to
achieve all three however it's all relative. You can have a DSL line
now instead of a T1, it's fast and cheap but most arent as good as a
T1 and the SLAs arent there right?
Usually you
Warning , this post won't configure a router.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner
or later, you will have
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:42:46 -0500 Richard Irving wrote:
Huh, must be in marketing or sales, perhaps a CEO, even.
Yup, I am a CEO. I am also (still) one of the most experienced and
best educated IP engineers around. It is fun being CEO. Rather than
throw stones, you might want to
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:20:36 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher
than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a
simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
OK. I'll bite. What do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup, I am a CEO.
1-900-psy-kick
Call now, Mon, we're a waiting for ya!
I am also (still) one of the most experienced
and best educated IP engineers around.
And humble, too. :\
[Said to a list where Van Jacobson and Vixie have been known to lurk]
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 14:37:08 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
relatively cheap. I know our costs are lower and quality is higher
than our competitors and I believe the reason is that we go for a
simple network designed around cheap routers and fat pipes. We made
OK. I'll bite. What do
Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast "guaranteed latency" seems too low in most cases that I've
seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't seem to do
as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off "local" IPexchanges will
continue/increase in importance because people
Title: Re: PAIX
At 16:01 -0800 11/15/02, Jere Retzer wrote:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-7
Content-Description: HTML
Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in
most cases that I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but
the real world doesn't seem
- Coast-to-coast guaranteed latency seems too low in most cases that =
I've seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't =
seem to do as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off local IP exchanges =
will continue/increase in importance because people won't tolerate
I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a neutral exchange point
(even if it's 1500 sqft in the bottom of a bank building.)
What application will
PV Date: 14 Nov 2002 05:14:30 +
PV From: Paul Vixie
[ re number of US exchange points ]
DD Right now seems domestically 6 may be all we need.
PV I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right
PV now, and 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any
PV metro with population
I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a neutral exchange point
(even if it's 1500 sqft in the bottom of a bank building.)
What application
Well thanks for the agreement Ed.
Philosophically, I agree with Paul. I think 40 exchange points would
be a benefit. At this time though, there is no model that would
support it.
1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance peering
becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
David;
I recommend some quality time with journals covering South
Korea, broadband, online gaming and video rental.
regards,
fletcher
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
David;
I recommend some quality time with journals covering South
Korea, broadband, online gaming and video rental.
Current peering
Wired covered several of these topics in their August issue.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/korea.html
The article points out several subtle, yet fundamental,
changes that happen socially and psychologically once the
broadband network is available everywhere, to virtually
everyone,
Still seems that none of these requires peering every 100 km.
Latency is still not a factor in this case.
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Pick any two.
As far as digital libraries and content and such... proxies and
caches would fill the roll here.
- Original Message -
From: Pete Kruckenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: PAIX
Wired covered several of these topics in their August issue.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/korea.html
The article points out several subtle
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
At 18:31 + 11/14/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
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
Thus spake E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
SS Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:32:55 -0600
SS From: Stephen Sprunk
SS Incorrect. Cheap longhaul favors a few centralized
SS exchanges. If there is no economic value in keeping traffic
SS local, it is in carriers' interests to minimize the number of
SS peering points.
True. However, cheap
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
Anything like that would require serious
## On 2002-11-14 14:44 -0800 Vadim Antonov typed:
VA
VA
VA On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
VA
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
VA number of alternative paths routing
Voice of reason...
The only possible reason I can think of is if these data networks
replace the present voice infrastructure. Think about it, if we
really all do replace our phones with some video screen like in the
movies, then yes, most of those calls stay local within the cities.
Mom
At 1:20 +0200 11/15/02, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
## On 2002-11-14 14:44 -0800 Vadim Antonov typed:
VA
VA
VA On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
VA
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
VA number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
VA
VA Anything like
Equinix and SD (PAIX) will be the new peering exchanges.
I hate to think how many exchange points that leaves out. Telehouse
and Terramark come to mind. Even if there are some dominant players,
domestic neutral exchange points are still a diverse, vibrant market.
Question is, outside of 6
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
