On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 6:18 AM, Sean Donelan[SMTP:SEAN@SDG.DRA.COM] wrote: @>Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing @>them with a more distributed architecture? @ @Yes, lots of folks have given it lots of thought. @ @>Multiple data centers interconnected over ATM in a single metro area run by @>indepdenant entities who are free to provide any level of service or value @>add they wish. @ @The fundamental problem is there are no magic pixie dust in this business. @Sure, some people like to put out press releases saying how they've solved @all the worlds problems using the Magic Frambulator. But what they've usually @done is ignored half the problem. @ Or...they have designed systems that have the wrong goals... For example, some people design routers to "attract packets" like magnets. They design protocols for routers to tell other routers what packets to send them. Why on earth do people and companies want packets ? Processing packets costs time and money. Imagine a world where routers tell other routers what NOT to send them. Routers should be designed to "repel packets" and to quickly get rid of the ones they have. They should also be designed to send them as quickly as possible to the place they belong and not to some black-hole called a NAP so that people can puff out their chests about their NAP being bigger than the next NAP. With the introduction of next-generation Internet systems, we might have a chance to reverse some of the thinking that has produced the current bottle-necks. Organizations like NANOG can play a key role because ultimately the buck stops at your networks, routers, firewalls, servers, etc. The key to the future is to make sure packets do not also stop there or come there when you do not want them. ;-) - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net/IPv8 IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM