[160581] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Fri Feb 8 13:51:26 2013
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:50:45 -0800
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: fredrik danerklint <fredan-nanog@fredan.se>,
"North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <51153A04.4090209@fredan.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2/8/13 9:46 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>>> About 40 - 50 Mbit/s. Not bad at all.
>>>
>>> Downloading software does not have to be in real-time, like watching
>>> a movie, does.
>> In both cases it's actually rather convenient if it's as fast as
>> possible,
>
> Yes. What I would like to have is to allow the access switch, which a
> customer for an ISP is connected to, to let the customer have 1 Gbit/s
> of bandwidth if the traffic is to or from the cache servers at their
> ISP.
>
You're positing a situation where a cache infrastructure at scale built
close to the user has a sufficiently high hit rate for rather large
objects to be more cost effective than increasing capacity in the
middle of the network as the bandwidth/price curve declines. My early
career as an http cache dude makes me a bit suspicious. I'm pretty
confident that denser/cheaper/faster silicon is less expensive than
deploying boxes of spinning disks closer to the customer(s) than they
are today (netflix's cache for example isn't that close to the edge
(would support 2-10k simultaneous customers for that one application per
box), it aims to get inside the isp however) when you add
power/cooling/space/lifecycle-maintenance (I'm a datacenter operator) if
it wasn't the CDN's would have pushed even closer to the edge. Of course
if you can limit consumer choice then you can push your hit rate to 100%
but then you're running a VOD service in a walled garden and there are
plenty of those already.
That said provide compelling numbers and I'll change my mind.
