(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@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@nanog.org> on behalf of Glen Kent <
glen.kent@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2020 11:02 AM
> To:
nanog@nanog.org <
nanog@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