mailing list archives
Re: Info on MAE-EAST
From: Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 23:14:19 -0800
Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com> wrote:
I would like to know if anyone has measured this one way or the other, since
if there is a demonstrated tendancy toward local traffic, it may open some
currently-closed minds on the value of joining *hundreds* of regional IXPs
and regionalizing our routes so that we can inject a subset into each such
IXP without giving anyone unintended transit or subsidizing their long haul
What do you propose to do with route flap?
While creative "regional" filtering is theoretically possible
i'm convinced the complexity involved will quickly overshadow
whatever benefits the local peering provides.
Long-distance telcos generally find it cheaper to backhaul traffic
hundreds of miles to large switch sites instead of installing zillions of
And, no, public exchange points are not dead. They have benefits
of higher flexibility (one 155M pipe going to an exchange point
is _more_ than three 45M pipes going to three other ISPs --
the traffic is not spread equally, and there are fluctuations).
There is at least one way to make public exchanges to handle
a lot (10000 times) more traffic. But you know it already.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Re: Info on MAE-EAST Randy Bush (Jan 16)
RE: Info on MAE-EAST Rodney Joffe (Jan 16)
Re: Info on MAE-EAST Stan Barber (Jan 16)
Re: Info on MAE-EAST Vadim Antonov (Jan 17)
RE: Info on MAE-EAST Rodney Joffe (Jan 18)
- Re: Info on MAE-EAST, (continued)