[109564] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: an over-the-top data center
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Mon Dec 1 14:23:02 2008
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <4934357E.7030502@vaxination.ca>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:22:50 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Jean-Fran=E7ois Mezei wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet
>> switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily =20
>> than
>> direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not
>> be mission critical. Treating it as such raises the cost, and
>> therefore barrier to entry, which lowers its value.
>
> Exchange points are often located in the same building as a carrier
> hotel which houses infrastructure for many ISPs and many transit =20
> providers.
>
> If you consider the internet is used only by teenage males to learn
> about female anatomy (pictures and movies), then your statement is
> acceptable. But with the Internet now used for serious applications, =20=
> the
> focus point of a carrier hotel and exchange becomes much more mission
> critical.
>
> Ane because it is a focus point, it becomes much harder to have
> redundancy in the buildings (to provide for disaster tolerance). So =20=
> the
> natural avenue is to strenghten/re-inforce your one central building.
It is not.
The Internet can be mission critical. (Well, not really, but it's =20
trying.) And for something mission critical, a single point, no =20
matter how well reinforced, is not good enough.
The exchange point should _NOT_ be mission critical. As I explained =20
multiple times in the thread, if that is your only vector, your design =20=
is broken. Period. Care to argue otherwise?
And if the IXP is not your only vector, if your redundancy is greater =20=
than any single building however deeply it is buried, then that IXP / =20=
building / vector is not mission critical. Treating it at such raises =20=
its price, which raises its barrier of entry, which lowers its utility.
Unless you think only NORAD-approved networks should peer?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
