nanog mailing list archives
Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?]
From: Tony Li <tony.li () tony li>
Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2004 17:35:50 -0700
On Jul 5, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.Sure it does. The question is: "How far does it scale?" Nothing scales to infinity, and very, very few things do not scale past the degenerate case of 1.
You need to take into account all of the aspects of the complexity that you introduce when you throw that fiber over the wall tho. While the fiber installation is simple enough, you have now created other problems: who will maintain it? Who knows it is there? Who knows that it is there in the other organization? Who needs to know about it within your own organization?
How is tracked? Who does the NOC call when it goes bad?While it may be a single exception to your network architecture, if it is an exception that 100 people need to know about, then I'd argue that it doesn't scale. The fun and games that we had in Ye Olden Days o' the Internet simply are not workable when you are coordinating
with hundreds of other employees. Put another way, scalability can never overlook the human element. Tony
Current thread:
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?], (continued)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Bill Woodcock (Jul 04)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Steve Gibbard (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points Niels Bakker (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points Christopher L. Morrow (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] joe mcguckin (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Tony Li (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Patrick W Gilmore (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Paul Vixie (Jul 05)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Michael . Dillon (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Leo Bicknell (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] vijay gill (Jul 06)
- Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 06)
- RE: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed publicly available?] Mark Borchers (Jul 06)