Interesting points, and although orthogonal to the analysis in Do
ATM-based Internet Exchange Points Make Sense Anymore?, I am including
these in the appendix to show these alternate views of the world. Am I
missing any of the major (fact-based) views?
There is this small thing that higher
Hi all -
I have walked about 30 people through the Do ATM-based Internet Exchange
Points make sense anymore? white paper and have received some really good
feedback, suggestions and price points to calibrate the Peering Financial
Model. I have applied these calibrations and I am ready to
Thus spake Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
Shaping, for one.
There is nothing inherent in Ethernet which precludes shaping. Low- and
mid-range routers can do it just fine. If your core router doesn't, speak with
your
Thus spake Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea
if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires.
FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI)
FR
Exchange Points make sense anymore?
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Nenad Trifunovic wrote:
It appears that for analysis purposes one has to separate access
from switching. How much payload one brings to the exchange depends
on port speed and protocol overhead. In that light, Frame Relay
can bring
Paul just hit on it. At how many layers do you want protection, and
will they interfere with each other. Granted not all protection
schemes overlap. If there if not a layer 1 failure, and a router
maintains link0 but the card or routers has somehow failed and is no
longer passing
I suppose the discussion is what do you want from your exchange pt
operator and what do you NOT want.
At the IXP level, bits per month always trumps bits per second,
and usually trumps pennies per bit as well. There are now a number
of companies trying to sell wide area ethernet -- even
Paul Vixie wrote:
Adding complexity to a system increases its cost but not nec'ily its value.
Consider the question: how often do you expect endpoint liveness to matter?
The issue I'm trying to address is to figure out how to extend the robustness
that can be achieved with tuned IGP's with
warning: i've had one high gravity steel reserve over my quota. hit D now.
The issue I'm trying to address is to figure out how to extend the robustness
that can be achieved with tuned IGP's with subsecond convergence across
an exchange point without suffering a one to five minute delay
Mike Hughes wrote:
With the shorter timers or fast-external-fallover, a very short
maintenance slot at a large exchange can cause ripples in the routing
table. It would be interesting to do some analysis of this - how far the
ripples spread from each exchange!
We do BGP instability
Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 10 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
why on god's earth would subsecond anything matter in a
nonmilitary situation?
It does when you start doing streaming anything, say TV or telephony. I
I submit that it doesn't matter for voice or video,
Paul Vixie wrote:
warning: i've had one high gravity steel reserve over my quota. hit D now.
The issue I'm trying to address is to figure out how to extend the robustness
that can be achieved with tuned IGP's with subsecond convergence across
an exchange point without suffering a one
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:09:05PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
If the software MTBF would be better, convergence would not be an issue.
As long as it's an operational hazard to run core boxes (with some
vendors anyway) with older piece of code than six months, you end up
engineering
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 11:20:44AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 06:09:05PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
If the software MTBF would be better, convergence would not be an issue.
As long as it's an operational hazard to run core boxes (with some
vendors
On 10 Aug 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
why on god's earth would subsecond anything matter in a nonmilitary situation?
Telemedicine, tele-robotics, etc, etc. Actually, there's a lot of cases
when you want to have subsecond recovery. The current Internet routing
technology is not up to the task;
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Nenad Trifunovic wrote:
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay
based exchange in your analysis?
I'd imagine because no real 'high-speed' FR switch exists (as in, oc12 or
above).
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
Shaping, for one.
What is the current max speed of frame relay in any common vendor
implementation (I'm talking routers here).
Doesn't OC48 POS on GSR and Jewniper do FR?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL
On Sat, Aug 10, 2002 at 05:42:32PM -0400, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
What is the current max speed of frame relay in any common vendor
implementation (I'm talking routers here).
Doesn't OC48 POS on GSR and Jewniper do FR?
Welcome to MAE Chicago/New York, http://www.mae.net/FE/. But M160's
-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Hi again -
A couple points (based on some interactions with folks privately).
This is not an ATM is bad, or general ATM-bashing paper. It simply applies
the same Peering Analysis
Personally, I don't believe that ATM is 'bad' for
shared-fabric exchange point. I mean, it works, and solves several
problems quite easy: a) it's easily distributed via SONET services to
folks who are not next to the ATM switch, b) it makes interconnection
between
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay
based exchange in your analysis?
I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-)
The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy
FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay
based exchange in your analysis?
I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-)
The majority of IXes around the world
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea
if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires.
FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI)
Pete
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, William B. Norton wrote:
One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing)
You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without
counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an
ethernet-based IX. Since
-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea
if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires.
FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI)
Pete
What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not?
That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea
if the guy on the other end died until the BGP timer expires.
FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI)
Adding complexity to a system increases its
26 matches
Mail list logo
