[34823] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network for Sale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Tue Feb 20 10:37:14 2001
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Paul Vixie <vixie@mfnx.net>
Date: 20 Feb 2001 07:33:03 -0800
In-Reply-To: nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net's message of "20 Feb 2001 00:08:26 -0800"
Message-ID: <g3vgq5bc9c.fsf@redpaul.mfnx.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net (John Fraizer) writes:
> Beyond that, I'm _REALLY_ sick of people pissing and moaning about NAPS
> being congestion points. If you're so tired of the exchange point being
> slow, INVEST IN MAKING IT FASTER!!!!! ...
That's what PAIX did. And Equinix for that matter. Exchange points aren't
slow, though I admit that some of the ATM-based exchanges have hit their
scaling limit. Exchange points based on Ethernet with rich PNI opportunities
literally do not have scaling limits.
The existence of the OPTIX/SAVVIS/InterNAP model isn't an an indictment of
exchange points so much as it is of the routing system itself. However,
bloating the global routing table with lots of discontiguous subnets isn't
a workable solution. These networks need backbones and rich peering so they
can negotiate deaggregation with just those peers who want the detail.
Otherwise they're just value-added resellers of other networks who DO have
backbones and rich private peering. (Which is what MIBH was, so I'm aware
of the customer-perceived benefits in the value being added -- the difference
is that MIBH was honest about it.)
