Re: PAIX

["Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com>]

Thus spake "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles () skynet be>
> At 2:45 PM -0600 2002/11/24, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >  None of these applications have any requirement for peering every
100km2.
> >  I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my
> >  house's firewall and only talk using link-local addresses anyways.
>
> Using Rendezvous and multicast DNS?  What happens when you bring
> in the rogue appliance that decides to start spoofing answers from
> other equipment, or maybe you contract a computer virus that does so?

That's a potentially interesting discussion, but it has nothing to do with
requiring peering in every 100km2.

> I think the real risk is VoIP and mobile phones used as Internet
> video phones with H.323 or other protocols that require high
> bandwidth and low latency.  Imagine doing this for tens of millions
> of people in a large city.

And the half-dozen carriers who operate those tens of millions of phones
will have private peering in place if it makes technical sense -- just like
they do for TDM phones.  That doesn't mean those carriers will want to peer
publicly in every city, nor does it necessarily mean that private peering in
every city makes economic or technical sense.

As I previously asserted, every point in the US is within 20ms RTT of a
major exchange today, and 20ms latency is irrelevant in the VoIP arena.

Try again.

S