[44065] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NY ranks #1 in Internet b/w
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Fri Nov 2 18:27:47 2001
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 15:27:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@exigengroup.com>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20011102125110.M75854-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10111021522270.31221-100000@arch.exigengroup.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Apparently, there's no enough EU <-> AP traffic to justify direct
circuits. The dispersion-shifted single-mode ground fiber (along the
route of Trans-Siberian railroad) does exist.
--vadim
On Fri, 2 Nov 2001, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2001, Nipper, Arnold wrote:
>
> > But if you look at trunks going into *another* country the same report comes
> > to this ranking.
>
> > London
> > Paris
> > New York
> > Amsterdam
> > Frankfurt
>
> > This report also says that the relevance of US for Internet is decreasing.
>
> Hm, I'm still waiting to witness a traceroute from Europe to Asia or the
> Pacific that doesn't go over the US for the first time. Are there subs
> that can lay undersea cables yet? A cable from Northern Europe to Japan
> and the US North West under the North Pole icecap would be great.
>
> > As ever: never trust a statistic unless you faked it yourself ...
>
> But one thing is obvious: we IP people put our stuff where we think we
> want it, not where it should go looking from a redundancy/vulnerability
> standpoint.
>
> If I want to send a packet from The Hague to Philadelphia, the packet will
> almost certainly pass Amsterdam and New York, two places where huge
> amounts of traffic can easily be disrupted. If the IP routers were to be
> placed closer to the places where seacables surface, this problem would go
> away: all those major hubs are serviced by multiple fiber landing
> locations.
>
