Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic

["Jay R. Ashworth" <jra () scfn thpl lib fl us>]

On Fri, May 22, 1998 at 10:02:47PM -0500, Tim Salo wrote:
> I have two conflicting notions about the the interesting possibilities
> offered by nationwide layer-two services:
>
> o     Layer-two services with distance-insensitive pricing, such as
>       ATM, create some interesting opportunities.  If it doesn't cost
>       any more to get across the country than to get across town, why
>       should I build a local NAP rather than a nationwide NAP?  (Unless,
>       of course, I am a RBOC and am administratively constrained from
>       offering inter-LATA service.)  (I am also ignoring a comparison
>       of a NAP-in-a-closet/POP/parking ramp versus a
>       NAP-in-a-metropolitan-area; this is e-mail to nanog, not a
>       paper for Sigcomm.)  Perhaps more relevant today, why should I
>       build a regional Gigapop, _if_ my ATM pricing is truly
>       distance-insensitive?  (There might be an answer to the last
>       question, I really don't know.  But, I keep asking.)
>
>       In other words, if pricing is distance-insensitive, why do I
>       need local exchanges?

Forgive me, but kee-rist!  Haven't I bung this drum enough this month?

Because, more and more as the net penetrates, the traffic is more and
more _local_.  Geographically local.  My point about MAE-East-in-a-garage
was that there was only _one_ of them; where it _was_ was only thrown
in for spite.

Especially as the net becomes more used for telecommuting, there is
absolutely _no_ sense in my having to telnet from St Pete 30 miles to
Tampa via a router in Maryland or San Francisco, "just" because the two
sites in question decided to buy their connectivity from different
backbones.

> o     Distance matters.  It is easy to configure an IP network over
>       a large layer-two service that bounces packets around the country,
>       (because IP routing protocols generally think in terms of hop
>       count, not [physical] distance).  It would be nice if
>       routing protocols thought about [physical] distance, rather
>       than require the network designer to be responsible for 
>       designing the network such that considerations of physical
>       distance were implicit in the network design.  Of course, in the
>       good old days before distance-insensitive-priced services, this
>       wasn't such an issue.

I don't know if it's _possible_ to push this into the routing layer --
even if the routing protocol decides not to ship those 30 mile packets
3000 miles... it doesn't _matter_ if there's no link to _put them on_.

It's obvious that it's time for my nap (no pun intended), my underscore
quotient has shot through the roof.

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