[81856] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fundamental changes to Internet architecture
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Gauthier)
Fri Jul 1 09:42:38 2005
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:40:29 -0400
From: Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <OF44ACADE4.3C93851E-ON80257031.003966F1-80257031.00398A99@radianz.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> I guess I'm not the only one who thinks that we could benefit from some
> fundamental changes to Internet architecture.
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,68004,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
>
> Dave Clark is proposing that the NSF should fund a new demonstration
> network that implements a fundamentally new architecture at many levels.
Not that I want to throw any more fire on this, but I think the article is
talking about National Lambda Rail. From what I've seen, this is supposed to
be a next-generation Internet2 based on wavelengths instead of pipes. I don't
know a lot about it but, from what I've seen, my impression is this. Keep in
mind that I'm not really involved with the NLR stuff directly, so my thoughts
are really as an outsider looking in.
Internet2 is significantly under utilized, so we don't need a new network to
provide significantly more bandwidth (we're at 10% utilization I think).
Institutions on Abilene connect in through GigaPops and, in terms of the
"last mile", getting gigabit rate metroEthernet down to a Gigapop isn't as
bad as it used to be given that many fiber providers have gone under recently
and given the collective bargining that's going on among members
(see the Quilt project - http://www.thequilt.net). Just as this situation
is being exploited to make purchasing fiber inexpensive for NLR, its also
made it inexpensive for local consortiums to purchase for themselves
(e.g. the Northern Crossroad's metro ring purchase, NEREN, etc.)
NLR's scheme looks like the ideas floated in the 90s about creating this
massive ATM network (this time, its going to be DWDM and MPLS), where you
could provision all sorts of "services". When they built it (vBNS), my
impression is that no one wanted those services and hence Abilene was built.
Again, the institutions really just wanted packet transport and didn't care
about the overly services and it seems that one of NLRs big benifits is mainly
its ability to provide these overlay services.
Next, NLR seems to be supplying waves and fibers in the exact same locations as
Abilene, which is to say the same locations that already have both a glut of
fiber and high speed connectivity. NLR isn't going to help me solve any of
the problems I have with connectivity today because it goes only where I already
go today. Another big drawbback is that NLR has been a closed club with a
very high cost of entry. Again, if the cost of buying fiber assest directly
(or one or two schools collectively) is less than joining NLR, why would I
want to join?
These issues, and I'm sure others, has resulted in somewhat of a lack of
interest in NLR which seeems to be party of why NLR is looking to merge back
into the Internet2 project.
At least, that's my view from from Boston...
Eric :)
