[1453] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: value of co-location
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Forster)
Fri Jan 19 14:57:05 1996
To: Dennis Ferguson <dennis@Ipsilon.COM>
Cc: "George H. Clapp" <clapp@bellcore.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 1996 10:19:22 PST."
<199601191819.KAA29244@mailhost.Ipsilon.COM>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 11:17:31 -0800
From: Jim Forster <forster@cisco.com>
> > I'm also curious about the value of co-location. Using a fast packet
> > service (Frame Relay, SMDS, or ATM) allows your on-site router to
> > communicate directly with a router of another ISP. There's no need to
> > purchase another router to place at the co-location site. Why incur the
> > additional cost?
>
> To avoid having to use any of the fast packet services you mentioned?
> Or to allow you to use routers, which you know about, instead of being
> dependent on the random characteristics of switches the telephone
> company bought?
>
> Not using either of the last two fast packet services, in particular, will
> also yield 30% more useful bandwidth from a T3 circuit. This all by itself
> may make up for the co-location costs and the cost of a router.
Actually, the overhead for IP over SMDS is more like 40%, if I remember
correctly, because of all the headers (8 byte SNAP, 32 byte SMDS) on top of
the ATM cell tax (5 out of 53 on cell headers, average 1/2 a cell wasted at
the end of the packet which occurs about ever 5 or 6 cells), figured on the
observed Internet average packet size of ~220 bytes a couple years ago.
What's the average packet size now? I think the overhead on DS-3 ATM/SMDS
is worse than on OC-3, if I recall correctly, because the DS-3 PLCP is so
wasteful as well. Someone should redo these calculations more accurately.
So, if the fast packet based access to NAPs is priced at ~40% less, *and*
the ATM switches perform as well as the FDDI switches, then it is a don't
care.
-- Jim
