Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture? 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. Thoughts? Ben black@ishiboo.com
On Tue, 19 May 1998 black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote:
Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
Uhhh... Savvis.
Multiple data centers interconnected over ATM in a single metro area
That's the PacBell NAP in the Bay Area and the AADS NAP in Chicago.
run by indepdenant entities who are free to provide any level of service or value add they wish.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having an exchange point don't you think? Or are you thinking of something more like what the PAIX does? http://www.ix.digital.com/ -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
Multiple data centers interconnected over ATM in a single metro area
That's the PacBell NAP in the Bay Area and the AADS NAP in Chicago.
Don't forget the IndyX, and the VNAP architecture. A little bit of both (Regional / National). http://www.indyx.net/ And, Priori is specializing in setting up regional exchanges. http://www.priori.net/ Quite a few come to mind....
There is power point presentation floating out there about this. -Madlion On Tue, 19 May 1998 black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote:
Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
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.
Thoughts?
Ben black@ishiboo.com
Yes. Actaully there has been a bit of hypothetical conversation about this very topic chez moi. I suppose this could be set up as a sort of national extension of the CIX. The question that needs to be answered if such a national ATM "exchange" were to be created is the issue of what exactly it could be used for. Do you set it up like a national exchange, and only allow providers to exchange traffic with other providers, or do you set it up more like the Ebone, allowing providers to connect in multiple metropolitan areas and use the national exchange's bandwidth instead of building their own backbone? And do you set up a national ATM cloud connecting all the existing NAPs and allow anyone to peer with anyone else anywhere, or simply have a national ATM cloud directly connecting providers, or both? Of course, it would be a bit harder to get all the FDDI NAPs onto ATM but isn't WorldCom supposed to have ATM at MAE-East by Q3 this year (leaving only PAIX and SprintNAP)? At this point, sending packets via FedEx seems to be more reliable than MAE-East, (FedEx is a little slower but at least ALL the packets get there eventually) so any functional alternative is welcome... -Blake --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blake Willis 703-448-4470x483 Network Engineer, New Customers blakew@cais.net CAIS Internet, a CGX Communications Company --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 19 May 1998 black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote:
Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
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.
Thoughts?
Ben black@ishiboo.com
black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote:
Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
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.
Thoughts?
It sounds alot like the multi-tiered proposal I put forth about 3 years ago to build local exchanges on top of frame networks in certain cities, then interconnect cities to regional exchanges, then interconnect the regional exchanges. That architecture takes advantage of traffic locality as well as providing a path out for non-local traffic. If the individual regional exchanges have a small enough number of participants, they are easier to manage, and should one participant have alot of traffic going to regional or inter-regional exchange, you simply install a PVC to there. There is some breakpoint for scaling however... I think it still would work pretty well on top of Frame, though it is aimed at the local/regional ISP rather than the nationals. Bob
On Wed, May 20, 1998 at 09:51:54AM -0400, bob bownes wrote:
It sounds alot like the multi-tiered proposal I put forth about 3 years ago to build local exchanges on top of frame networks in certain cities, then interconnect cities to regional exchanges, then interconnect the regional exchanges. That architecture takes advantage of traffic locality as well as providing a path out for non-local traffic. If the individual regional exchanges have a small enough number of participants, they are easier to manage, and should one participant have alot of traffic going to regional or inter-regional exchange, you simply install a PVC to there. There is some breakpoint for scaling however...
Naaaah, Bob. That would mean that there might actually be some geographic locality of reference to Internet traffic -- you know, my telnet from Tampa to Auburndale, Florida, might actually not go via Orlando, Atlanta, DC, and MAE-East in New Jersey. And that would never be acceptable. Just ask Sprint, AT&T, GTE/BBN, and MCI. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.com
On Tuesday, May 19, 1998 5:03 PM black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote :
Subject: a little thought on exchanging traffic Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
Actually, this is a good idea, if the co-location or adequate locations to place access equipment and transit routers can be found in the area, or build-out for each provider is an option. If I could charge for the cross-metro transit at say, $1000/month for a dedicated T3, do you think that the concept of a carrier hotel would go away? If so, which cities should be first (like toasting MAE-EAST?)? On a similiar note, what if a company were to create a "virtual exchange point", where backbone providers could order service anywhere in the country and get transit to their peers elsewhere for a flat rate. IE, if I run a 4xOC-12c ATM network nationwide, and let transit occur between peers over it rather than at a co-lo facility. I can imagine charging around 5K a month for a DS3 circuit with PVC's to around 5 peers. Opinions anyone? (VC anyone?) Jonathan Arneault Director of Business Development CMA / INet Solutions Division 518.783.9003 x 253
Whoa, your idea is not entirely new, just now coming into vogue.. We put up a prototype in '95, it cut into production a few months later. http://www.indyx.net/ This is a Regional Exchange with ATM access to the national exchanges. (Including switches at FDDI exchanges) We sell longhaul paths, IP transit in Indy, and local exchange services. It seems fairly scalable.... Richard Jonathan Arneault wrote:
On Tuesday, May 19, 1998 5:03 PM black@bleep.ishiboo.com wrote :
Subject: a little thought on exchanging traffic Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing them with a more distributed architecture?
Actually, this is a good idea, if the co-location or adequate locations to place access equipment and transit routers can be found in the area, or build-out for each provider is an option.
If I could charge for the cross-metro transit at say, $1000/month for a dedicated T3, do you think that the concept of a carrier hotel would go away? If so, which cities should be first (like toasting MAE-EAST?)?
On a similiar note, what if a company were to create a "virtual exchange point", where backbone providers could order service anywhere in the country and get transit to their peers elsewhere for a flat rate. IE, if I run a 4xOC-12c ATM network nationwide, and let transit occur between peers over it rather than at a co-lo facility. I can imagine charging around 5K a month for a DS3 circuit with PVC's to around 5 peers.
Opinions anyone? (VC anyone?)
Jonathan Arneault Director of Business Development CMA / INet Solutions Division 518.783.9003 x 253
participants (8)
-
blackļ¼ bleep.ishiboo.com -
Blake Willis -
bob bownes -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jonathan Arneault -
madlion -
Michael Dillon -
Richard Irving