Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: MAE-EAST Moving? from Tysons corner to reston VA.
From: hardie () equinix com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:14:15 -0700 (PDT)

        You'd probably want at least a panel, if not a wrestling pit.
You'd certainly want a set of translators available, as a lot of folks
looking at the problem seem to use the same terms to mean slightly
different things.  As an example, "Traffic exchange" can be used as
synonymous with "peering" or it can be a broader term that includes
what happens when one party hands another packets and pays it for
        As an example, Equinix IBX centers are put together
essentially as dark fiber exchanges--most of the traffic is carried by
fiber (or copper) cross-connects between one customer's cage and
another's.  You could say that those cross connects make up the bulk
of the exchange fabric.  There is an ATM switch available for those
who need to do a lot of aggregation or want a device in the middle to
do some policing, but even that is seen as a way of doing
entity-to-entity cross connects.  Some would say that our model
doesn't include a "public exchange architecture" at all, but is a way
of doing private traffic exchange in shared space.  Others would say
that we are a public exchange, but one which lacks some of the
characteristics of a shared-medium exchange.
        In either case, Mark's point about scaling interconnect
bandwidth is a key question.  On one hand you have Tier-2 ISPs who
want fast ethernet based systems, because they don't really have an
immediate need to go for anything faster; on the other, you have
backbone-to-backbone traffic that is rapidly moving to the point where
the only thing that will make sense is to trade a lambda.  It's hard
to have public exchange that it is a good entry point for a Tier-2
that also meets the needs of the backbones.  Using multiple different
exchange methods to handle the different needs is one way around
the problem, but it comes at a cost in gear, support, and network
engineering.  The inertia in existing traffic exchange mechanisms
is also high enough that what tends to happen is that new connections
take new forms but the old mechanisms aren't taken out of service
at any speed--which again has a cost in gear, support, and network
        Anyone else want to jump in this particular wrestling pit?
I'd be very happy to hear what other folks are thinking along these
                                        Ted Hardie
                                        (Not speaking for the company)

This kind of topic has the makings of a good presentation for the WDC

Any takers?

No public exchange architecture can hope to cope with the massive
amounts of traffic being exchanged between the larger backbone networks.
Public exchanges are good entry points for new networks while they build
their customer base and traffic levels. At some point private
interconnects must take over in order for a company to continue to
provide the level of connectivty and service that their customers

The next operational issue that I forsee is the effective scaling of
private interconnect bandwidth (especially with the lack of real port
density on a certain router vendor's product).


dhudes () hudes org wrote:

Isn't the push to MAE-ATM ?
For better or worse -- the FDDI switch MAE can't hope to keep up
when people are building OC-48 cross-country backbones. All that traffic
goes someplace. It becomes expensive to have multiple ports on the FDDI
switch paying for each.

Wayne Bouchard                                    [Immagine Your    ]
web () typo org                                      [Company Name Here]
Network Engineer

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]