The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma
From: Martin Lee Schoffstall <schoff@psi.com> Subject: Re: The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma Date: Tue, 04 Feb 92 22:47:42 -0500
I've deferred responding publicly to the com-priv message since I hoped others would. But I will respond to this....
there isn't a routing "problem". there are gigapackets/month running through the CIX reliably, with little latency, and very inexpensively.
What vaf wants is some tuning for the high bandwidth path that he and a very few others have by the grace of nsf and tax $'s. it is a reasonable request given that people don't want to ante up quite yet for t3 cix interconnects. This tuning to my knowledge is driven by a fairly small % of the total CIX networks (10 out of 500?).
Right now the performance of the NSFnet is pretty bad (even the T3 network performance is worse than a CIX provided connection) so you are probably doing your customers a service by using the CIX to route packets instead of the NSFnet. But let's look into the future where ANS finally gets its technical act together and the T3 NSFnet really starts to hum. Add in much greater use of the CIX and I can see an inverted picture where the CIX is more of a bottleneck than the NSFnet. Let me bring this closer to home for you. The federal government is paying to provide a T3 network for research and education. I suspect that NYSERnet is intended to be a beneficiary of this service. I also presume that PSI is still the carrier for NYSERnet (please correct me if I am wrong). In that case, by running traffic through the CIX you are circumventing a federal resource. Not a problem now but what if the NSFnet gets its act together? In that case you, PSI, will be doing your clients who may legitimately use the NSFnet, a GREAT disservice. Were I them I would become POWERFULLY annoyed. How are you going to deal with the problem then? Bottom line here Marty is that you and every other service provider who carries both CO and RE traffic had better have a DAMNED good answer to this problem. I would recommend you begin to think about it NOW. I have been harping about dropping AUPs on the NSFnet but that is unlikely to ever happen so we are going to have to live with the detritus. Now one last item: don't get on Vince's case. He has been tasked with solving a problem and he is doing his best. He has identified a problem that clearly ought to be dropped in your lap (collective "your" because I suspect that CERFNet and possibly UUnet/Alternet are in the same boat). Perhaps you ought to say "thank you" and work with him instead of pooh-poohing his posting. Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Lloyd & Associates Principal and Network Architect 3420 Sudbury Road brian@lloyd.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 voice (916) 676-1147 -or- (415) 725-1392
Brian, I've had retail service customers since 1985, i have had user's groups meetings 3-4 times a year since 1986, I know who pays the bills, and I don't have a big university to back me if I fail, or a government agency to pay me regardless if it works. Trust me, I'm properly motivated. I don't think I pooh poohed VAF, in fact I didn't even respond to his posting yet, so relax your over-reacting. John Curran's posting from nearnet says that my tremendously detailed engineering solution called "tuning" (see my upcoming paper in IEEE Networks) works for 115 - 20 of his organizations. That's not too bad given the big R&D budget of the last few days. I kind of disagree on the need for an immediate DAMN good answer, given the many upcoming changes I see 3-4 answers over the next 18months as things evolve. And I see them being done cooperatively with little in the way of emotion or rancor. Marty PS: despite the intensity i do appreciate the statement that you believe that I'm doing my customer a service by using the CIX. -------
From: Martin Lee Schoffstall <schoff@psi.com> Subject: Re: The CIX and the NSFNET regionals - a dilemma Date: Tue, 04 Feb 92 22:47:42 -0500
I've deferred responding publicly to the com-priv message since I hoped others would. But I will respond to this....
there isn't a routing "problem". there are gigapackets/month running through the CIX reliably, with little latency, and very inexpensively.
What vaf wants is some tuning for the high bandwidth path that he and a very few others have by the grace of nsf and tax $'s. it is a reasonable request given that people don't want to ante up quite yet for t3 cix interconnects. This tuning to my knowledge is driven by a fairly small % of the total CIX networks (10 out of 500?).
Right now the performance of the NSFnet is pretty bad (even the T3 network performance is worse than a CIX provided connection) so you are probably doing your customers a service by using the CIX to route packets instead of the NSFnet. But let's look into the future where ANS finally gets its technical act together and the T3 NSFnet really starts to hum. Add in much greater use of the CIX and I can see an inverted picture where the CIX is more of a bottleneck than the NSFnet. Let me bring this closer to home for you. The federal government is paying to provide a T3 network for research and education. I suspect that NYSERnet is intended to be a beneficiary of this service. I also presume that PSI is still the carrier for NYSERnet (please correct me if I am wrong). In that case, by running traffic through the CIX you are circumventing a federal resource. Not a problem now but what if the NSFnet gets its act together? In that case you, PSI, will be doing your clients who may legitimately use the NSFnet, a GREAT disservice. Were I them I would become POWERFULLY annoyed. How are you going to deal with the problem then? Bottom line here Marty is that you and every other service provider who carries both CO and RE traffic had better have a DAMNED good answer to this problem. I would recommend you begin to think about it NOW. I have been harping about dropping AUPs on the NSFnet but that is unlikely to ever happen so we are going to have to live with the detritus. Now one last item: don't get on Vince's case. He has been tasked with solving a problem and he is doing his best. He has identified a problem that clearly ought to be dropped in your lap (collective "your" because I suspect that CERFNet and possibly UUnet/Alternet are in the same boat). Perhaps you ought to say "thank you" and work with him instead of pooh-poohing his posting. Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Lloyd & Associates Principal and Network Architect 3420 Sudbury Road brian@lloyd.com Cameron Park, CA 95682 voice (916) 676-1147 -or- (415) 725-1392
participants (2)
-
brian＠lloyd.com -
Martin Lee Schoffstall