[33324] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel L. Golding)
Mon Jan 8 23:12:53 2001
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 23:10:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Daniel L. Golding" <dan@netrail.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>,
Barry Raveendran Greene <bgreene@cisco.com>, deen@slt.lk,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E14Foil-000PxQ-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101082307320.22774-100000@courier.netrail.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is an especially strange comment, as almost everyone who peers,
interconnects in multiple places - thus, exceeding the capacity of a
single interface.
Layer 1 peering (or pooling, as it's more usually known) is great for
interconnecting fiber networks, fast provisioning, and all that. However,
I fail to see the connection between Layer 1 interconnection and an IP
exchange point of any kind. This seems apples and oranges. Layer 2
exchange points are the only efficient way to go for IP traffic. History
and the "invisible hand" of the market have endorsed this path.
Daniel Golding NetRail,Inc.
"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > Maybe. However, l2 is for telco.
> >
> > l2 exchange ponints are a labor suck and are fragile.
> >
> > The right path is l1, though, then, there is less reason to have
> > exchange points.
> >
> > It will be more obvious as the peering speed between two ISPs exceeds
> > that of a single physical interface.
>
> glad to have words of practical wisedom from your experience as a large
> provider.
>
> randy
>
