Re: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
| Still using an 8086 for a desktop? | | Obsolences does happen.... As I've said many times since the early 90s, *I* can afford top of the line computational power to solve my local problems. Other people are not so lucky, and may not be able to help grow the Internet any more if forced to buy the equipment I can. Also, there are better things to spend money on than top of the line computational power across one's entire network... (That is, I try to schedule my obsolescences so that today's top of the line stuff replaces the stuff that no longer is sufficient for the core, which then gets moved in to replace the stuff that is no longer sufficient for the region, which then gets moved in to replace stuff that is no longer sufficient for the edge, or sold to smaller providers, or turned into scrap/art. Accelerating this schedule is certainly possible, as is standardizing on only one box which is sufficient for the core, but I think either approach is gonna make our services much more expensive, and some of our competitors and customers just won't be able to keep up... The effects of decelerating this schedule, and how it applies in networks which are smaller than the ones I tend to associate with, or even end users at home, are left as an exercise for the reader.) Sean. ps - to answer the question, my desktop is now one of NetBSD -current with XFree86 CVS HEAD & gwm or Mac OS X 10.1 with XFree86 CVS HEAD in rootless mode coexisting with the native Aqua graphical system plug plug plug: 10.1 is awesome (caveat: i never used 9 or earlier extensively, so ymmv)
--On Friday, 28 September, 2001 2:36 PM -0700 "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org> wrote:
As I've said many times since the early 90s, *I* can afford top of the line computational power to solve my local problems.
This misses the point, it's not about what you /can/ afford locally, it's how it's paid for. The problem is that the cost implications are suffered disproportionately by those not enjoying substantial benefit of having the route accepted. You yourself have argued that $$ would fix this. Alex Bligh Personal Capacity
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Alex Bligh wrote:
This misses the point, it's not about what you /can/ afford locally, it's how it's paid for. The problem is that the cost implications are suffered disproportionately by those not enjoying substantial benefit of having the route accepted. You yourself have argued that $$ would fix this.
This is assuming your customers are /not/ paying for more diverse routing choices. There is a correlation between value (customer's willingness to pay) and route table size (consider the recent ugliness between C&W and PSI). A route table of size 0 would have no value. A larger route table has more value (to the customer), as long it doesn't noticably impact network performance. The problem (if there even is one) now is not (yet) route-table size, it is flapping of /24's. Sean's progressive dampening is much more appealing than Verio's filtering, to solve this problem. Filtering needs to be shelved for the future, if no other alternative method is found (ie Multi6 mapped to IPv4, etc). I suspect if customers knew routes were being filtered, they would care a lot. This only works because it is targetted at less-noticeable address blocks, and exceptions are made for noticeable address blocks (major site on a /24's). If customers knew that this was being done, and there was no noticeable value created by the change (as is the case now), they would have a problem. This information probably isn't included Verio's sales slick, it wouldn't land many sales. Pete.
participants (3)
-
Alex Bligh -
Pete Kruckenberg -
smd＠clock.org