nanog mailing list archives

Re: a little thought on exchanging traffic


From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 11:51:26 -0400

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


Current thread: