[109551] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: an over-the-top data center
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Dec 1 09:08:15 2008
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <84E9903D44E8EB2D4B96964B@rasmus.kthnoc.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:08:09 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:58 AM, M=E5ns Nilsson wrote:
> --On s=F6ndag, s=F6ndag 30 nov 2008 23.05.01 -0500 "Patrick W. =
Gilmore"
> <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
> In Sweden, the reason to not choose NetNod (and to go with the smaller
> exchangepoints) is price and only price. No swedish ISP I know of has
> stated that the fact that the Stokab fibre is bought by the IXP and =20=
> not the
> ISP is a problem per se. Some might have a better wholesale deal than
> NetNod has but that is still just about price.
I don't think any IXP can become a significant player on the Internet =20=
today by only attracting participants from the country in question. =20
The Internet is not bound by political borders. (Usually. :)
>> Now compare that to forcing every single participant to use unknown =20=
>> fiber
>> paths into an unknown facility. When are these fibers groomed, and =20=
>> onto
>> which unknown paths? Which fiber maintenance schedules might =20
>> impact me
>> without my knowledge? Which construction projects elsewhere in the =20=
>> city
>> might take me down and there's no way for me to even predict that? =20=
>> Etc.,
>> etc.
>
> The fiber paths into these facilities are national security issues. =20=
> Expect
> them to be guarded accordingly (as in running them in specially =20
> blasted
> tunnels 30-60 meters down in the ground for the last aggregated path =20=
> to the
> facility). I have not experienced more unpredictability nor more =20
> outages
> because Netnod buys the cable than when the ISP does. Same cable. And
> Stokab does indeed know where the cables are.
I'm glad to hear the fibers seem to be stable. Past performance is no =20=
guarantee of future profits and all that, but it is good to know care =20=
has been taken in the past.
As for the blasting of tunnels and national security angle, this is an =20=
IXP, not nuclear missile launch control. It should not be your only =20
vector to get bits from point A to B. And if it is, then you have a =20
larger problem than worrying about the facility withstanding physical =20=
attack.
And no, attaching to multiple NetNod nodes is not a solution, since =20
only Stockholm has a large number of participants.
End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet =20
switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily than =20=
direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not =20=
be mission critical. Treating it as such raises the cost, and =20
therefore barrier to entry, which lowers its value.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
