Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Service Provider Exchange requirements
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck () arch bellsouth net>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 05:47:43 -0400


On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:34:29PM +0000, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
I'll give a few more hints as to what I'm looking for.. 
      Did you answer my questions?  :)

Now, now, if you guys keep counting, I'm going to start a purse for the 
winner and everyone will have to chip in for asking questions and giving 
answers.  :*)
 
[.. MPLS discussion clipped ..] 

You could use MPLS inside the exchange to provide a transport for IP.  But,
one could argue that it would have limited usefulness (what amounts to LANs
is as you already stated below always easily overprovisioned), given that last
time I checked we didn't have something like true peering at the LSP level to 
peer the actual paths etc etc..  I think you would need something that serves
as a clear demarc.  I really don't want to mention the ATM P-word, but 
something which serves as conceptually similiar step; preferably without all
the other ATM'ness about it.

Nor does anyone seem to have much operational clue as to what something like
a true MPLS exchange would look like.  I'd love to hear counterpoints..

On the other hand, that challenge alone seems interesting enough that one
should perhaps try. :-)  I would contend, though, that only somebody wants to 
peer MPLS BGP-VPNs, the take rate at an exchange point might be rather low,
given that people might be so skiddish with these sorts of things that special
arrangements between two or more interested parties will probably be forged.

Kind of brings up an interesting thought.. does it make sense for and exchange
point to perhaps have multiple "planes" on which various things are exchanged?
If so, it would perhaps operationally make things a little easier... depending
on what was chosen for the plane itself.

[..]
Is Diff-Serv or ATM QoS a requirement or can 85-90% of requirements
be met with loss/latency service as the baseline?

      Overprovisioning solves nearly all QoS concerns. There are
      very few QoS requirements.

True.  This obviously assumes that everybody brings their own gear to the
party and whatever people do inside of it is nobody else's business as long
as it plays nice, doesn't disturb anyone else, bla bla .. as defined by the
AUP.  Are the AUPs for the various exchange points posted anywhere?  How can 
one get a hold of them?

On a much more important point, what *ARE* people's expectations for SLAs etc
when it comes to exchange points, be it private and or public? (and I'm asking
specifically for what people would like to see rather than what's actually
happening.  although, both is interesting.)  Please speak up.
 
What special arrangements should be made for hosting (e.g., local
caching or streamers)?  Yes, I'm stretching here a bit.

      Reassure your exchange clients that you are -NOT- in
      direct competition with them.

I agree with you here.  I think having colo facilities *NEAR* a NAP but having
an obvious (design and otherwise) difference between them is good(tm).  
Forcing anything above and beyond on traffic exchange is bad, and given how
picky we SPs are we probably have all sorts of other/different ideas for 
how to do just about everything, take rate will probably be low.  No?

Cheers,
Chris

-- 
Christian Kuhtz                                     Architecture, BellSouth.net
<ck () arch bellsouth net> -wk, <ck () gnu org> -hm                       Atlanta, GA
                                                    "Speaking for myself only."



  By Date           By Thread  

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