[1495] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: value of co-location
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (mike)
Mon Jan 22 22:40:22 1996
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:18:27 -0500 (EST)
From: mike <mn@tremere.ios.com>
To: Sean Doran <smd@icp.net>
cc: bac@serendip.sdsc.edu, lawrence@mci.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <96Jan22.141502-0000_est.20608+163@chops.icp.net>
On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Sean Doran wrote:
> | Bottom line: about 270,000 pps per port, 14 microsec.
... how about 4 microseconds latency and 15 million cells/sec?
(for the same price)
Mike
(nsc ers does that I guess)
> | forwarding latency AND superior reliability. The choice
> | for NAP designers everywhere :)-
>
> Bilal, I think you missed a word.
>
> "Successful" seems to have been omitted between "choice" and "for".
>
> Some NAP designers opted for packet shredders, and might
> even be getting some thousands of pps total traffic (so they
> claim, but then they seem to count very local (i.e.,
> cross-town) ATM connectivity as "NAP" traffic), as opposed to
> the low tens of thousands of packets per second *per port*,
> with much of that being traffic between sites with about 30
> times the delay * bandwidth buffering requirements.
>
> Of course, the fact that the switched FDDI exchange points
> have proven to be more reliable in practice than the ATM
> exchange points have -- even with a fraction of the load --
> tends to do nothing to diminish the religious fervour of
> the people who assert that ATM NAPs are the ultimate single
> answer to the needs of the Internet.
>
> I wonder sometimes if their brains were cellified and passed
> through an ATM NAP...
>
> Sean.
>
----------------------------------------------------------
IDT
Michael F. Nittmann ---------
Senior Network Architect \ /
(201) 928 1000 xt 500 -------
(201) 928 1888 FAX \ /
mn@tremere.ios.com ---
V
IOS
