different thinking on exchanging traffic
A few days ago I posted a proposal for traffic exchange across an ATM backbone specifically designed for that purpose. I am suggesting an NxOC-48 network with peers purchasing DS3 connections at their various geographic locations, and establishing ATM PVCs with specified CBR's to their respective peers. Each DS3 connection would allow up to 5 PVCs, with over-subscription at a 2 to 1 maximum. In this scenario, a flat pricing for a port would be about 5K/month, and CBR's would be set at a maximum of 10K/mo for full DS3 bandwidth. Since the beginning of this thread, I have been in contact with several venture capital firms to feel out the support from the financial world about making this do-able. I have estimated the costs involved with the fiber and switch purchases at about US 691MM for sunk capital costs, and approximately 250K/mo for operating expenses. With strong indications of its fiscal viability, I am now asking you, the potential consumers of such a service, your distinct opinions, and whether or not you would purchase such a service if made available. Specifically, if I build it, will you come. Your response will determine whether or not I will proceed in my discussions with the VCs, and will probably be incorporated into a supporting document in the application for funding. It is understood that no statement you make in regard to this letter will be legally binding, and will in no wise obligate you to purchase this service if and when it becomes available. I'm really asking you all to do me a favor by letting me know if you'd like to see this or not. If so, great. If not, I'd rather spend my energy on something that'll be successful. Please respond to me directly, and include your name, title, your company's name, and a day-time telephone number. Thanks much, Jonathan Arneault jarneault@inet-solutions.net
On Fri, 22 May 1998, Jonathan Arneault wrote:
A few days ago I posted a proposal for traffic exchange across an ATM backbone specifically designed for that purpose.
Do you realize that what you are suggesting is nothing more or less than yet another national Internet backbone provider? And that the architecture you are proposing is nothing more or less than the architecture that many existing backbones already use? -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
Hmmm. This sounds like Qwest. Plans for an OC192 backbone with bandwidth to anyone. Already planning to do the InterGIGAPOP net for Internet2.
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 20:30:32 -0400 From: Jonathan Arneault <jarneault@inet-solutions.net> Subject: different thinking on exchanging traffic To: nanog@merit.org Reply-to: jarneault@inet-solutions.net
A few days ago I posted a proposal for traffic exchange across an ATM backbone specifically designed for that purpose. I am suggesting an NxOC-48 network with peers purchasing DS3 connections at their various geographic locations, and establishing ATM PVCs with specified CBR's to their respective peers. Each DS3 connection would allow up to 5 PVCs, with over-subscription at a 2 to 1 maximum. In this scenario, a flat pricing for a port would be about 5K/month, and CBR's would be set at a maximum of 10K/mo for full DS3 bandwidth.
Since the beginning of this thread, I have been in contact with several venture capital firms to feel out the support from the financial world about making this do-able. I have estimated the costs involved with the fiber and switch purchases at about US 691MM for sunk capital costs, and approximately 250K/mo for operating expenses.
With strong indications of its fiscal viability, I am now asking you, the potential consumers of such a service, your distinct opinions, and whether or not you would purchase such a service if made available.
Specifically, if I build it, will you come.
Your response will determine whether or not I will proceed in my discussions with the VCs, and will probably be incorporated into a supporting document in the application for funding. It is understood that no statement you make in regard to this letter will be legally binding, and will in no wise obligate you to purchase this service if and when it becomes available.
I'm really asking you all to do me a favor by letting me know if you'd like to see this or not. If so, great. If not, I'd rather spend my energy on something that'll be successful.
Please respond to me directly, and include your name, title, your company's name, and a day-time telephone number.
Thanks much, Jonathan Arneault jarneault@inet-solutions.net
Dave Nordlund d-nordlund@ukans.edu University of Kansas 785/864-0450 Computing Services FAX 913/864-0485 Lawrence, KS 66045 KANREN
On the topic of exchange traffic. Is it necessary for both parties who will be exchanging traffic to have an as number?
Technically speaking, no.
From what I understand in order to have the routes announced to the internet this will be needed.
Today's "Internet" is a superset of internet providers interconnected using a common EGP routing protocol -- BGP4. To participate in a 'NAP' and exchange routes with volumous amounts of peers, BGP4 is pretty much a necessity. In most all cases, BGP4 requires that the person announcing routes use a unique ASN. If you want your upstream to provide the routing announcements for you, they can anounce your networks with their ASN.
participants (5)
-
Alan Hannan -
DAVE NORDLUND -
John Golovich -
Jonathan Arneault -
Michael Dillon