Some thoughts:
- Coast-to-coast "guaranteed latency" seems too low in most cases that I've
seen. Not calling CEOs and marketers liars but the real world doesn't seem to do
as well as the promises. As VOIP takes off "local" IP exchanges will
continue/increase in importance because people won't tolerate high
latency. What percentage of your phone calls are local?
- Yes, we do various kinds of video over Internet2. Guess what? Packet loss
is very important. Fewer hops mean fewer lost packets. Local
exchanges, if there were lots of them with lots of peering reduces the
theoretical number of hops. Who will most of the videoconferences involve in the
future — I think mostly people who see each other face-to-face periodically.
Leading this are telework and telemed. Broadband is getting to the point that
people will want to call up their doc/clinic rather than jump in the car just to
be told to go home and go to bed, and get exposed to someone who has a
contagious disease. Nursing homes, assisted living facilities, emergency rooms
in mall towns should be key targets for this technology.
- While we're on the topic of local video, what happens when television
migrates to IP networks? Seems like the "local" news should want to
originate somewhere close. Most of our local TV and radio stations are part of
chain today and their corporate headquarters have decided to host their web site
at a central location without even worrying about Akamai or other local
caching.
- Unfortunately, these applications do not work with today's local
broadband networks — one reason being the lack of local interconnection. People
have quit believing the Radio Shack ads. We have the technology to make these
applications work if we'd stop arguing that no one wants to use them. Of course
no one wants to use them — they know they won't work!
>>> David Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/14/02 05:52PM >>>
Voice of reason...
The only possible reason I can think of is if these data networks
replace the present voice infrastructure. Think about it, if we
really all do replace our phones with some video screen like in the
movies, then yes, most of those calls stay local within the cities.
Mom calling son etc etc
So we can think of these "peering centers" as replacements for the
5-10 COs in most average cities.
Otherwise what apps require such dense peering.
At 14:44 -0800 11/14/02, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
>
>> 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
>
>Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
>number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
>
>Anything like that would require serious redesign of Internet's routing
>architecture.
>
>--vadim
>>> David Diaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/14/02 05:52PM >>>
Voice of reason...
The only possible reason I can think of is if these data networks
replace the present voice infrastructure. Think about it, if we
really all do replace our phones with some video screen like in the
movies, then yes, most of those calls stay local within the cities.
Mom calling son etc etc
So we can think of these "peering centers" as replacements for the
5-10 COs in most average cities.
Otherwise what apps require such dense peering.
At 14:44 -0800 11/14/02, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
>
>> 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
>
>Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
>number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
>
>Anything like that would require serious redesign of Internet's routing
>architecture.
>
>--vadim
