RE: Internet diameter?
To get back to the original question regarding the "diameter" of the Internet, it would appear to me that we are easily looking at about 30 to 40 hops just within North America -- and easily double that to reach the rest of the Internet outside of North America. Of course, the "Top 5 Channels" are probably only a few hops away due to CDNs, but this is for the most part irrelevant (unless one only wants to watch the Top 5 channels) ... --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
Re: Internet diameter?
" Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer had purchased." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Big content has been making this more complicated. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Keith Medcalf" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 1:31:24 PM Subject: RE: Internet diameter? >> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it). "just static content" would be more accurate ... >I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like >bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses, >equipment status, and other things that change constantly. There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the 90's -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with their "transparent poxies". Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer had purchased. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-Original Message- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Stephen >Satchell >Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2018 20:45 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Internet diameter? > >On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Re: 350 E Cermak
Equinix is the most popular with TelX bringing up second place. Both have expensive cross connects. There are others, but they aren't relevant for interconnection. Intra-building connectivity is damn expensive. https://peeringdb.com/advanced_search?address1__contains=350=Chicago=fac - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jason Lixfeld" To: "NANOG mailing list" Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 2:09:08 PM Subject: 350 E Cermak Hey all, Looking for some clue on how things work, and who’s who for colo at 350 E Cermak. Looking at possibly putting a rack in somewhere there for a Peering/Transit/PNI POP. Is there a list somewhere of colo facilities in that building? Also, how does it work there in terms if inter-colo, intra-building connectivity, or is that a mixed bag? Thanks!
350 E Cermak
Hey all, Looking for some clue on how things work, and who’s who for colo at 350 E Cermak. Looking at possibly putting a rack in somewhere there for a Peering/Transit/PNI POP. Is there a list somewhere of colo facilities in that building? Also, how does it work there in terms if inter-colo, intra-building connectivity, or is that a mixed bag? Thanks!
RE: Internet diameter?
>> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it). "just static content" would be more accurate ... >I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like >bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses, >equipment status, and other things that change constantly. There were many attempts at this by Johhny-cum-lately ISPs back in the 90's -- particularly Telco and Cableco's -- with their "transparent poxies". Eventually they discovered that it was more cost efficient to actually provide the customer with what the customer had purchased. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. >-Original Message- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Stephen >Satchell >Sent: Wednesday, 21 November, 2018 20:45 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Internet diameter? > >On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
Re: Internet diameter?
On Thursday, 22 November, 2018 05:30, "William Herrin" said: > Good question! It matters because a little over two decades ago we had > some angst as equipment configured to emit a TTL of 32 stopped being > able to reach everybody. Today we have a lot of equipment configured > to emit a TTL of 64. It's the default in Linux, for example. Are we > getting close to the limit where that will cause problems? How close? If it's hop-count that's interesting, I think that raises a question on the potential for a sudden large change in the answer, potentially with unforeseen consequences if we do have a lot of devices with TTL=64. Imagine a "tier-1" carrying some non-trivial fraction of Internet traffic who is label-switching global table, with no TTL-propagation into MPLS, and so looks like a single layer-3 hop today. In response to traceroute-whingeing, they turn on TTL-propagation, and suddenly look like 10 layer-3 hops. Having been in the show/hide MPLS hops internal debate at more than one employer, I'd expect flipping the switch to "show" to generate a certain support load from people complaining that they are now "more hops" away from something they care about (although RTT, packet-loss, throughput remain exactly the same). I wouldn't have expected to break connectivity for a whole class of devices. Regards, Tim.
