- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Rob Liebschutz 09 Dec '96

09 Dec '96

> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Joe Rhett wrote: > > > > > > It is actually quite hard in practice to push a FDDI switch > > > into trouble, although theoretically it should be simple, modulo > > > the interesting effects that token-withholding can produce. > > > > Hm. Not sure what you mean. FDDI can certainly be over-utilized, that's > > not hard. On the other hard, FDDI doesn't fall down and die like > > Ethernet does when congested. > > > > > In practice, the limiting factor will tend to be the per-port > > > bandwidth rather than the aggregate bandwidth. One would have > > At the Atlanta-NAP we offer full duplex FDDI, why not try to get MFS to do > it? Cisco now has a full duplex FDDI card, so you can do 200 Mbs into the > NAP. Talk to Steve Feldman from MFS. At the October Nanog meeting he mentioned that their Gigaswitches (not sure if this is was just for MAE West) were ready to support Full Duplex FDDI and he invited volunteers to try it. Unfortunately, the GRF does not yet have a full duplex FDDI interface available, but when I asked about it, Ascend told me that they had implemented a CDDI interface in 3 weeks time to gain the business of of one customer. Rob

2 1

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 07 Dec '96

07 Dec '96

Joe Rhett <joe(a)Navigist.Com> wrote: >The issue that everyone seems to be overlooking is network design >flexibility. Even if ATM has higher overhead, you can only grow a FDDI >network so much. It really isn't all that hard to max out most FDDI >switches. Nah. The issue is that ATM is a rather expensive way to achieve nothing. And, if you never heard about it before: FDDI is not what people use to send data over backbone lines, no matter what trade mags show in their cute pictures. --vadim

1 0

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Vadim Antonov 07 Dec '96

07 Dec '96

salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo) wrote: > From: Paul A Vixie <paul(a)vix.com> > [...] > ... and they aren't subject to ATM's cell tax ... >I am surprised, (well, maybe not), that you aren't concerned about >the excessive overhead present in FDDI networks... FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a $3M/yr circuit is quite different. ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet price/performance-wise. --vadim

2 1

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Scott Huddle 07 Dec '96

07 Dec '96

"Alex.Bligh" <amb(a)xara.net> wrote > > I think that what Alex really should say 'No'. What he saying is > > that for Xara UK-sourced traffic is split like this: > > 50% is sent to UK peers at the LINX in London > > 40% goes to the USA > > 10% goes to dGIX in Stockholm > > > Doh! Yes. Must get reading lessons. Missed the word "remaining". So none of the traffic from Xara goes back out to Xara customers?! > Currently I have no foolproof way to differentiate traffic that > goes over the LINX destined for in UK and outside UK. There's > some work going on to build a list of UK ASes to this end (amongst > others) but it hasn't been done yet. Quite agreed this is hard stuff, thus my interest :) > Jim is quite right (except it works bidirectionally). Do you see symmetrical flows in and out of the country or do you see more inbound that outbound? -scott

3 2

RE: Exchanges that matter...
by Danny Stroud 07 Dec '96

07 Dec '96

Yes, thanks for making my point. des ---------- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu on behalf of Vadim Antonov Sent: Thursday, December 05, 1996 3:59 PM To: Danny Stroud Cc: 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. --vadim

1 0

SLC Connectivity
by Daryn D. Fisher 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

I know this isn't the correct forum for this question so please reply directly to oz(a)tpa.net instead of the list. We need another T1 connection in Salt Lacke City, UT and really can't find anyone we want to use out here. Any suggestions? If you are trying to sell your own service please submit estimated pricing and service guarentees. thanx

1 0

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by Dave O'Shea 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

> > Do you see symmetrical flows in and out of the country or do you > > see more inbound that outbound? > > There is a third possibility, of course. In our case we see more > outbound traffic towards the USA then inbound traffic from the USA, > because our UK customers have Web sites popular in the USA. .. So we have not only a trade deficit, but an "ack" deficit to keep politicians awake at night.. :-)

1 0

February meeting
by Susan R. Harris 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

Greetings - Here's some preliminary information about the upcoming NANOG meeting, to be held Monday-Tuesday, February 10-11, at the Grand Hyatt in San Francisco. - The meeting will last a bit longer this time - we'll run until 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday the 11th, rather than ending at noon as in the past. We'll send out a list of preliminary topics before the holidays, and will welcome your suggestions for further agenda items. The agenda will be posted at: http://www.nanog.org/ - There will be a NetSCARF tutorial on Sunday, February 9, from 1:00- 5:00 p.m. That evening, we'll be offering a tutorial session for new ISPs (topic to be announced). - Registration begins January 2. To help us with record-keeping, everyone will be asked to register via the Web. You'll have several options for paying the $100 attendance fee, depending on whether or not you want to submit payment electronically: - Fill out the registration form and send it to us over the Web with your credit card info. - Fill out the registration form and send it to us over the Web. Call and give us your credit card info over the phone. - Fill out the registration form and send it to us over the Web. Then fax or mail us your credit card info or mail us a check for the registration fee. We'll send out further details in a later message. Looking forward to seeing you at the meeting!

2 1

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

06 Dec '96

salo(a)msc.edu (Tim Salo) wrote: >> FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft >> piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a >> $3M/yr circuit is quite different. >I don't understand. Are you trying to say that price/performance >analysis is appropriate for LAN technologies, but not for WAN technologies? Quite opposite. Price of "transmission" in LANs is negligible as compared to the price of interface cards and switches. So a good price/performance of the overall system can be achieved by simplifying those switches or interfaces, particularly by using less efficient methods of transmission. The price of transmission facility in WANs easily exceed price of switching equipment by an order of magnitude or more. Therefore it is very silly to sacrifice transmission capacity for the sake of easier switching in WANs. >Now, I could understand if you said, "I analyzed ATM WAN services for >one configuration once and concluded that other technologies provided >better cost/performance in all possible configurations," or even >"I don't think ATM products and standards are mature enough for my >application." I don't think it will work as anything but sync muxes with silly framing in the real life WANs. I published my reasons for thinking so. >However, you seem to be saying that wide-area technologies >should be assessed based on total cost and overhead, rather than on >cost/performance... No, i simply left out a simple conjecture. --vadim

1 0

Re: Exchanges that matter...
by salo＠msc.edu 06 Dec '96

06 Dec '96

> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 14:56:00 -0800 > From: Vadim Antonov <avg(a)pluris.com> > To: paul(a)vix.com, salo(a)msc.edu > Subject: Re: Exchanges that matter... > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu [slashing and reordering your response slightly] > ATM as a LAN is probably ok, if it can compete with Gb Ethernet > price/performance-wise. Precisely my point, (which you managed to delete in your response). Price/performance seems like a pretty good analysis technique, at least for technologies that pass some basic hurdles, like "working." > FDDI is not a WAN technology. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a 10 ft > piece of fiber is one thing. Losing 20% of bandwidth of a > $3M/yr circuit is quite different. I don't understand. Are you trying to say that price/performance analysis is appropriate for LAN technologies, but not for WAN technologies? Now, I could understand if you said, "I analyzed ATM WAN services for one configuration once and concluded that other technologies provided better cost/performance in all possible configurations," or even "I don't think ATM products and standards are mature enough for my application." However, you seem to be saying that wide-area technologies should be assessed based on total cost and overhead, rather than on cost/performance... -tjs

1 0