[7082] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Info on MAE-EAST
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dorian R. Kim)
Thu Jan 16 08:29:14 1997
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:25:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
Reply-To: "Dorian R. Kim" <dorian@cic.net>
To: "Brett L. Hawn" <blh@nol.net>
cc: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970116061353.17407A-100000@dazed.nol.net>
On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Brett L. Hawn wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
> shot, and someone spank me if I'm way off but... From what I've seen, in any
> given city (assume a reasonable size of 200,000+) 50% or more of the traffic
> is local. By providing reasonable rates for private interconnects at a local
Nope. In a given reasonably sized (.i.e a city or so) geographical area,
you'd be lucky to get better than 20% locality of your traffic. There are
some exceptions where there are major traffic sources in the area, but those
tend to be pretty concentrated.
The percentage decreases further when you take into account traffic to/from
NSPs' customers in the locality as the NSPs are not likely to private peer
with local providers.
This is in no way a case against local peering, (every bit less traffic dumped
into the core from every locality adds up) but one needs to be aware of what
is gained from "exchange in every town" scenario.
-dorian
