Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, if the content provider simply honors MEDs, that should cover most of the issue. Then, the long haul is done across the content providers' backbone anyway.
Then you get into address aggregation issues that have already been discussed before.
The way I see it, an intelligent content distribution scheme addresses the vast majority of these concerns.
So, a question to the large web farms. Why is it that the largest web sites still seem to be hosted out of a single data center?
Where do you get your data? It seems to me that the bulk of the largest web sites with which I am familiar are located in at least two datacenters.
Alec
Owen Senior Network Engineer Exodus
-- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Here's the issue. Customers like the idea of distributed architecture, but are reluctant to do it. We've (FGC) developed an intelligent DNS product that works like a Cisco Distributed director, and can offer it for free to our customers. It does not cost customers anything additional to be in two sites, but they do not want the management hassles. One of the main issues for large sites is database replication. For example. If you have a search engine in both Herndon VA, and Sunnyvale, CA, the amount of cross country bandwidth to reliably do database replication in real time is huge. Therefore it is easier for that site to stay in one location. If you have a static site with no database, chances are they are not large enough to need a distributed architecture. Jason
Then you get into address aggregation issues that have already been discussed before.
The way I see it, an intelligent content distribution scheme addresses the vast majority of these concerns.
So, a question to the large web farms. Why is it that the largest web sites still seem to be hosted out of a single data center?
Where do you get your data? It seems to me that the bulk of the largest web sites with which I am familiar are located in at least two datacenters.
____________________________________________________ Jason Zigmont (N1JIV) jzigmont@globalcenter.net Senior Account Executive 212.618.9625 (V) Frontier GlobalCenter 212.571.2036 (F) http://www.globalcenter.net 1.888.795.3124(Pager) *Got Clue?!?! http://www.ispf.com *Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail: http://www.cauce.org
Owen DeLong wrote:
Where do you get your data? It seems to me that the bulk of the largest web sites with which I am familiar are located in at least two datacenters.
Most of the busy sites I frequent are hosted on the west coast (not just Exodus-hosted sites, but sites in general). Alec -- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 at 03:50:37PM -0400, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Where do you get your data? It seems to me that the bulk of the largest web sites with which I am familiar are located in at least two datacenters.
Most of the busy sites I frequent are hosted on the west coast (not just Exodus-hosted sites, but sites in general).
That's just how the internet plays, there are probably more sights phisically in the silicon valley then anywhere else on the west coast. It's where the busniness's are, and since they want to have their machines as close to them as possible, they put them here. On the other hand, the customers who view the sites are spread out all over the country (and world). Therefore replication is a good thing for these businesses. With your servers located all around the country (close to private or public peering points) you will get better performance. Of course if there are no public or private peering points located near the site, the value would be close to nil, since distribution needs local inbound traffic to be worthwhile. -- Steven O. Noble -- Sr. Backbone Engineer, Exodus Communications (EXDS) -- Work:408.346.2333 -- All my love to the Canadian Mooing Frog.
steve@altrina.exodus.net wrote:
That's just how the internet plays, there are probably more sights phisically in the silicon valley then anywhere else on the west coast. It's where the busniness's are, and since they want to have their machines as close to them as possible, they put them here.
There's some interesting logic. Don't get me wrong, I understand it (from the customer's point of view). However, I think that it would be a good idea for web farms to start to make it worth the customer's while to distribute their servers. It may not be much of a network cost savings from the web farm's point of view, but it does address some of the traffic asymmetry issues, on top of improving performance to the end user.
On the other hand, the customers who view the sites are spread out all over the country (and world). Therefore replication is a good thing for these businesses. With your servers located all around the country (close to private or public peering points) you will get better performance.
Agreed.
Of course if there are no public or private peering points located near the site, the value would be close to nil, since distribution needs local inbound traffic to be worthwhile.
Well, in the world of private interconnects there are private interconnect points all over the place. Also, you can always place your colocation facilities near the public interconnect points.
Steven O. Noble -- Sr. Backbone Engineer, Exodus Communications (EXDS)
Alec -- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
It will be a lot easier to incent customer to distribute, as a colocation provider, if we don't have to pay per Mbps that is imbalanced--and instead we have a direct cost associated with having to do best-exit.. I think pretty much anyone can understand that.
steve@altrina.exodus.net wrote:
That's just how the internet plays, there are probably more sights phisically in the silicon valley then anywhere else on the west coast. It's where the busniness's are, and since they want to have their machines as close to them as possible, they put them here.
There's some interesting logic. Don't get me wrong, I understand it (from the customer's point of view). However, I think that it would be a good idea for web farms to start to make it worth the customer's while to distribute their servers. It may not be much of a network cost savings from the web farm's point of view, but it does address some of the traffic asymmetry issues, on top of improving performance to the end user.
On the other hand, the customers who view the sites are spread out all over the country (and world). Therefore replication is a good thing for these businesses. With your servers located all around the country (close to private or public peering points) you will get better performance.
Agreed.
Of course if there are no public or private peering points located near the site, the value would be close to nil, since distribution needs local inbound traffic to be worthwhile.
Well, in the world of private interconnects there are private interconnect points all over the place. Also, you can always place your colocation facilities near the public interconnect points.
Steven O. Noble -- Sr. Backbone Engineer, Exodus Communications (EXDS)
Alec
-- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Robert Bowman wrote:
It will be a lot easier to incent customer to distribute, as a colocation provider, if we don't have to pay per Mbps that is imbalanced--and instead we have a direct cost associated with having to do best-exit.. I think pretty much anyone can understand that.
Absolutely. Ideally, doing good content distribution would address the cost imbalance concerns that the providers like BBN raise when peering with large content providers. Alec -- +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+ |Alec H. Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Lead Network Architect | |http://www.hilander.com | Erols Internet - an RCN Company | +-------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
participants (5)
-
Alec H. Peterson -
Jason Zigmont -
owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US -
Robert Bowman -
steve＠altrina.exodus.net