[33331] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Tue Jan 9 01:14:10 2001
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Message-Id: <200101090554.FAA10174@vacation.karoshi.com>
To: mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 05:54:46 +0000 (UCT)
Cc: dan@netrail.net (Daniel L. Golding), randy@psg.com (Randy Bush),
bgreene@cisco.com (Barry Raveendran Greene), deen@slt.lk,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200101090548.OAA10316@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> from "Masataka Ohta" at Jan 09, 2001 02:48:15 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I mean peering speed between a single pair of ISPs at a single
> exchange (or peering) point exceeds that of a single interface.
>
> And, if you need many, say 10, interfaces, l1 have all the
> flexibilities Vadim want.
>
> > Layer 1 peering (or pooling, as it's more usually known) is great for
> > interconnecting fiber networks, fast provisioning, and all that.
>
> You may say that we are not ready for full fiber networking, yet.
>
Any given interface is inherently rate limited.
When demand exceeds the capacity, something must be
done. Often this is done w/ "striping" or "muxing"
where multiple "low-speed" channels are "bonded" into
a single virtual path. L1 is not that different than
L2 & L3 in these cases. The specific dynamics are
unique per layer but the problem remains the same.
--bill
