- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Bill Sommerfeld 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

As is, practically all Internet traffic is long-haul. I can believe that this likely to be true for web browsing, but I *know* that at least one Boston-area ISP has a "private interconnect" with MIT because they had enough traffic locality to warrant it. Folks doing part-time telecommuting are likely to generate traffic with very high geographic locality; unfortunately, in a lot of cases, because of routing nonoptimalities, they wind up generating "long-haul" traffic instead.. - Bill

1 0

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

Wayne Bouchard <web(a)typo.org> wrote: >Actually... many of the private exchanges are there for several other >reasons as well. First, it can be convenient to set up a connection >with a net you're passing lots of traffic to so you can go direct to >them instead of through 7 or 8 odd routers outside your >net. (obviously) We were talking about tier 1 exchanges (i.e. between nation-wide and world-wide backbones). They by definition pass a lot of traffic between each other. >Second, it can be significantly cheaper to split the costs between the >participants and not have to pay a third party for access to the >exchange. (heck of a lot easier too..) Well, if you have 6 providers you'll need 15 private two-party exchanges to accomodate full connectivity in a region, vs a single public facility. It is a classical example of economies of scale. Consolidation of exchange facilities makes things a lot cheaper. (Providing there's a way to sustain that much traffic in one place). >Third, and going along with the first point, private exchanges can >help to more geographically orient your local corner of the >network. That way, to get across town, you don't have to go to >mae-west, over to denver, and back down to phoenix to travel 6 miles. > >This also serves to take a little traffic AWAY from the public NAPs >and can help reduce congestion and problems there. That would be fine, if traffic had high locality. As is, practically all Internet traffic is long-haul. I.e. i strongly doubt benefits of micro-exchanges will outweigh their drawbacks. >The principle disadvantage of lots of small exchange points, as far as >I see it, is that there may well be potential for A) many more paths >to get from A to B, meaning that each router will hold that many more >BGP entries and B) possibly a greater potential for route flap. C) a lot more facilities not generating revenue. --vadim

1 0

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Danny Stroud 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

Thanks, this is fundamentally the argument I was trying to make. Obviously, Wayne was much more articulate and does a better job. Also, sorry about the confusion on my email address. This is my personal box. See below for my true identity. des ----------------------- Danny E. Stroud WNA, Inc. 9250 East Costilla Avenue, Suite 400 Englewood, CO 80112 dstroud(a)wna.net office: 303-645-1904 fax: 303-792-3869 cellular: 303-903-0911 ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Wayne Bouchard Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 4:39 PM To: Vadim Antonov Cc: Danny Stroud; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... > Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com> wrote: > > >So how do you reconcile the increasing number of private facilities? Although > >not exchange points in the truest sense ala MAEs and NAPs, they do carry an > >increasing percentage of cross-network traffic. The number of these types of > >facilities will grow. Maybe our difference here is that I count these and > >others do not. des > > Er. Private exchanges are there only because public exchanges are running > out of gas. They have the same problems with routing as public exchanges do. Actually... many of the private exchanges are there for several other reasons as well. First, it can be convenient to set up a connection with a net you're passing lots of traffic to so you can go direct to them instead of through 7 or 8 odd routers outside your net. (obviously) Second, it can be significantly cheaper to split the costs between the participants and not have to pay a third party for access to the exchange. (heck of a lot easier too..) Third, and going along with the first point, private exchanges can help to more geographically orient your local corner of the network. That way, to get across town, you don't have to go to mae-west, over to denver, and back down to phoenix to travel 6 miles. This also serves to take a little traffic AWAY from the public NAPs and can help reduce congestion and problems there. The principle disadvantage of lots of small exchange points, as far as I see it, is that there may well be potential for A) many more paths to get from A to B, meaning that each router will hold that many more BGP entries and B) possibly a greater potential for route flap. -Wayne

1 0

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 05 Dec '96

05 Dec '96

Danny Stroud <dannystroud(a)msn.com> wrote: >So how do you reconcile the increasing number of private facilities? Although >not exchange points in the truest sense ala MAEs and NAPs, they do carry an >increasing percentage of cross-network traffic. The number of these types of >facilities will grow. Maybe our difference here is that I count these and >others do not. des Er. Private exchanges are there only because public exchanges are running out of gas. They have the same problems with routing as public exchanges do. --vadim

2 1

Re: The Cidr Report
by Paul Ferguson 05 Dec '96

05 Dec '96

Hey, this looks pretty good. Let's hope the trend continues (if, in fact, there *is* a trend). - paul At 12:00 PM 11/29/96 -0800, Tony Bates wrote: > >Date Prefixes >231196 40687 >241196 40908 >251196 40844 >261196 41043 >271196 41074 >281196 39803 >291196 39735 >

9 11

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Danny Stroud 05 Dec '96

05 Dec '96

So how do you reconcile the increasing number of private facilities? Although not exchange points in the truest sense ala MAEs and NAPs, they do carry an increasing percentage of cross-network traffic. The number of these types of facilities will grow. Maybe our difference here is that I count these and others do not. des ---------- From: Alex.Bligh Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 1996 1:50 PM To: Todd Graham Lewis Cc: Danny Stroud; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... > On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Todd Graham Lewis wrote: > > > Three NAPs per continent is plenty to serve this > > purpose; anything over this is reckless. > > Woops. Three is a nice, round, theoretical number. Five is fine. Fifty > is highly questionable to my mind. Thinking that more NAPs solves the > problem is just flat wrong. Hmmm.. Not sure "continent" is the right granularity here. In North America telecoms prices do not in general take enormous hikes when you cross state borders. In (say) Europe they do. Lines between European countries often cost more than lines between a given European country and the US. Also content and thus traffic is far more localised to each country due to language difficulties (well that part that doesn't go to English speaking countries anyway). So 3-5 NAPs (or whatever) per homogenous area (homogenous in content and in telecoms charging) perhaps. But ridiculous telco regulation within Europe and language differences makes a very strong case for at least one NAP per country (we dump about 50% of our UK traffic off in the UK). Alex Bligh Xara Networks

3 2

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Scott Huddle 05 Dec '96

05 Dec '96

Alex, This is a very interesting statistic, and I'd like to understand precisely what you mean by it. If you'ld allow me to restate it. Do you mean that of all the traffic sourced to you from customers within the UK, 50% of that traffic is destined for other UK sites either to your own customers or exiting out an in country exchange point? The remaining 50% of your traffic sourced within the UK is destined for outside of the country, and of this 50%, 50% of that is destined for Linx, 40% to the US, and 10% to Stockholm. Is this correct? -scott -- > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Wed Dec 4 16:26 EST 1996 > X-Mailer: exmh 1.6.9 960923 (lol(a)xara.net) > To: Jim Dixon <jdd(a)vbc.net> > cc: "Alex.Bligh" <amb(a)xara.net>, nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 21:05:59 +0000 > From: "Alex.Bligh" <amb(a)xara.net> > Sender: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset=us-ascii> > Content-Length: 723 > > > On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Alex.Bligh wrote: > > > > > in content and in telecoms charging) perhaps. But ridiculous telco regulation > > > within Europe and language differences makes a very strong case for at least > > > one NAP per country (we dump about 50% of our UK traffic off in the UK). > > > > What do you do with the other 50% of your UK traffic, Alex? > > Country wise? > > Difficult to divide up traffic sourced in the UK from traffic sourced > outside teh UK just at the mo, but we send the vast majority of the > rest to the states. I'd guess 50% to LINX (UK), 40% to US one way > or another and 10% to Stockholm SE. The figures are not too easy to > get as we are transitting US networks back to Europe too. > > Alex Bligh > Xara Networks > > > >

3 3

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by sob＠academ.com 05 Dec '96

05 Dec '96

> > > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. > > > > Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting > > information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting > > notes. > > I don't agree. The issue remains: if multiple note-takers are available, > why isn't someone stepping forward to help out with the *current* work? There has been some help at times. Just today someone stepped forward to volunteer (assuming he can get to NANOG regularly). -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by salo＠msc.edu 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

> To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG > Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 12:48:15 -0800 > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > > > > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. > > > > Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting > > information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting > > notes. > > I don't agree. The issue remains: if multiple note-takers are available, > why isn't someone stepping forward to help out with the *current* work? Sounds like a good proposal opportunity. [I wonder if there is a funding source other than the U.S. Federal Government that would be receptive to such a proposal.] -tjs

1 0

Re: Creation of working groups within NANOG
by Paul Ferguson 04 Dec '96

04 Dec '96

For crying out loud, this should be the least of our worries. :-) - paul At 12:48 PM 12/4/96 -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote: >> > That's fixed by having multiple note-takers. >> >> Yes, that is certainly one approach. Then the issue becomes collecting >> information from presenters and note-takers to build the on-line meeting >> notes. > >I don't agree. The issue remains: if multiple note-takers are available, >why isn't someone stepping forward to help out with the *current* work? > >

1 0