[5637] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Ungodly packet loss rates
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Goldstein)
Wed Oct 23 07:36:21 1996
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961022193737.16168G-100000@unix1.netaxs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 1996 07:07:09 -0400
To: Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
From: Steve Goldstein <sgoldste@nsf.gov>
Cc: John Curran <jcurran@bbnplanet.com>,
"Kent W. England" <kwe@6sigmanets.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Gord',
You said:
>"... But what if the big four no longer see the need to
>upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points? what happens to
>the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their
>packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint
>backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded. "
The argument can be made, and there might be empirical data to back it up,
that the private interconnects actually offload *at least in the short
term* the participants' pipes into the public exchange points. For
example, if a significant fraction (1/4th to 1/3rd) of the S and M and ...
traffic into a public exchange is S and M and ... talking among each other,
then offloading much of it at some other place might reduce the fractions
(maybe to 1/10th to 1/5th). Of course, if their business models do not
include eventual upgrading of their pipes into public exchanges, they will
have to balance the reduced <performance|reachability> to the Internet at
large as seen by their customers against any savings from not upgrading.
(Disclaimer: I pulled the numbers out of thin air, so anybody who quotes
them is as foolish as I for having put numbers in writing in the first
place.)
--Steve
