Re:

["Daniel L. Golding" <dan () netrail net>]

Vadim,

If you have that much traffic, privately peer. Public Exchange points of
any sort are geared for smaller amounts of data interchange. The only real
scaling question is number of peers. Please explain why you would want to
interconnect several 300GBps backbones across a virtual router box, as
opposed to direct private peering. For that matter, which networks are you
refering to? I can't think of too many operational 300Gbps IP networks. 

Daniel Golding                           NetRail,Inc.
"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"

On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:

> You mean you really have any other option when you want to interconnect
> few 300 Gbps backbones? :)  Both mentioned boxes are in 120Gbps range
> fabric capacity-wise.  If you think that's enough, i'd like to point out
> at the DSL deployment rate.  Basing exchange points at something which is
> already inadequate is a horrific mistake, IMHO.
>
> Exchange points are major choke points, given that 80% or so of traffic
> crosses an IXP or bilaterial private interconnection.  Despite the obvious
> advantages of the shared IXPs, the private interconnects between large
> backbones were a forced solution, purely for capacity reasons.
>
> --vadim
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Daniel L. Golding wrote:
>
> > There are a number of boxes that can do this, or are in beta. It would be
> > a horrific mistake to base an exchange point of any size around one of
> > them. Talk about difficulty troubleshooting, not to mention managing
> > the exchange point. Get a Foundry BigIron 4000 or a Riverstone
> > SSR. Exchange point in a box, so to say. The Riverstone can support the
> > inverse-mux application nicely, on it's own, as can a Foundry, when
> > combined with a Tiara box.
> >
> > Daniel Golding                           NetRail,Inc.
> > "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> >
> > > There's another option for IXP architecture, virtual routers over a
> > > scalable fabric.  This is the only approach which combines capacity of
> > > inverse-multiplexed parallel L1 point-to-point links and flexibility of
> > > L2/L3 shared-media IXPs. The box which can do that is in field trials
> > > (though i'm not sure the current release of software supports that
> > > functionality).
> > >
> > > --vadim