[46728] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: packet reordering at exchange points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Vixie)
Tue Apr 9 14:34:42 2002
From: Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Message from "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
of "Tue, 09 Apr 2002 18:00:31 -0000."
<Pine.LNX.4.20.0204091743380.16897-100000@www.everquick.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:16:24 -0700
Message-Id: <20020409181624.3A29A28E3B@as.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Hmmmm. You're right. I lost sight of the original thread...
> GigE inter-switch trunking at PAIX. In that case, congestion
> _should_ be low, and there shouldn't be much queue depth.
indeed, this is the case. we keep a lot of headroom on those trunks.
> But this _does_ bank on current "real world" behavior. If
> endpoints ever approach GigE speeds (of course requiring "low
> enough" latency and "big enough" windows)...
>
> Then again, last mile is so slow that we're probably a ways away
> from that happening.
my expectation is that when the last mile goes to 622Mb/s or 1000Mb/s,
exchange points will all be operating at 10Gb/s, and interswitch trunks
at exchange points will be multiples of 10Gb/s.
> Of course, I'd hope that individual heavy pairs would establish
> private interconnects instead of using public switch fabric, but
> I know that's not always { an option | done | ... }.
individual heavy pairs do this, but as a long term response to growth,
not as a short term response to congestion. in the short term, the
exchange point switch can't present congestion. it's just not on the
table at all.
