nanog mailing list archives

IX's


From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:10:45 -0800


From: Vadim Antonov [mailto:avg () kotovnik com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:32 AM

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.

All one has to do is look at PAIX. The whole system looks like it is being
used at real close to max capacity. I have a client at AboveNet and my
systems are on a CerfNet block. PAIX is between us. I feel their pain.

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.

and they aren't keeping up with the growth.

This entire IX thread has been interesting. But, it appears to be one of
those "good theory, implementation sux" sort of things. 


Current thread: