nanog mailing list archives
Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 17:30:44 -0400
At 08:38 PM 10/22/96 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
*BUT* here is my question. Don't private interconnects essentially provide a new apex for the internet? One that pushes interconnects at the major exchange points down a level. Sprint, MCI, UUNET, and BBN are clearly the four largest players by market share. All of them have multiple private interconnects with each other. perhaps ANS does as well. AGIS certainly does not. So in this sense, the "6" have not really become 15 but rather have become 4 or maybe 5.
This begs the question: What value do 'private' interconnects/exchanges provide? I would submit that the answer isn't readily acknowledgeable, or at least, has not been explored to the extents necessary. One Big Win (tm) with the creation of local interconnects (for instance, strategic locations in Asia & South/Central America), is that local content providers can find a way to swap bits without transiting all the way back to the United States; in my opinion, we need more exchanges to decrease the amount of traffic contributing to this problem. The value of private exchanges/peering between the larger global providers is that they can get traffic off of their backbone before it reaches exchange points which are already glowing in the dark. I don't think this needs much explanation. Part of the problem is that, the more BGP peers, the more the statistical chances for instability. Unfortunately, I don't readily see a solution to this particular issue, if large providers are not economically incentivized to build more, smaller interconnect points which allow tier-2 and tier-3 providers to peer with them. Then again, I don't pretend to understand *all* of the corporate political, technical and economic, issues. ;-) - paul (en route to Ann Arbor) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates, (continued)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Gordon Cook (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Steve Goldstein (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Jessica Yu (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Rod Nayfield (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Robert Laughlin (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Gordon Cook (Oct 22)
- RE: Ungodly packet loss rates Chris A. Icide (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Sean Donelan (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 22)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Curtis Villamizar (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates John Curran (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Paul Ferguson (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Jonathan Heiliger (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Darin Wayrynen (Oct 24)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tony Li (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Kent W. England (Oct 23)
- Re: Ungodly packet loss rates Tim Salo (Oct 24)