North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Info on MAE-EAST
At 2:17 PM -0800 1/17/97, dave o'leary wrote: >At 7:00 -0800 1/16/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: >>I can't claim to have recent numbers that suggest otherwise, but, some >>historical information might at least be interesting. In the early 80s, I >>did a good deal of X.25 capacity planning. At what was then GTE Telenet, >>we found that up to 50% of our traffic stayed local in large cities. The >>larger the city, the more that seemed to stay local...this was especially >>obvious in New York, where a great deal of financial data flowed. > >remember that in the early 80's you basically couldn't lease a T1 >from AT&T (I think it was 82 or so when they were first tariffed?) Dave, reality was funnier than that. It was 1980 or so when we actually did get a T1 between Washington and New York, but eventually released it because all of the DC-NY public network traffic wasn't enough to justify that HUGE amount of bandwidth. I did get the first nonmilitary T1 in the DC area in '77 or '78 at the Library of Congress. The then C&P Telephone couldn't really figure out how to charge for it, so we got it dirt cheap -- and it worked very well. >(watch out for that DC voltage...ouch! :-). I have a very painful memory of running my finger over a punchdown with some stranded wire that slightly got loose and broke the skin. Knocked me flat and sprained my shoulder. >also DDS services were scarce, etc. So (expensive) low speed analog >was the option for leased lines - and private networks were rare. >Since then of course the fallout from Judge Greene has changed some >things, and it is cheap and easy to put up a DS0 across town - the >cost justification vs. per packet charges is a lot different. > >>Now, these old statistics reflect mainframe-centric traffic, and more >>private-to-private than arbitrary public access. The latter is much more >>characteristic of Internet traffic. >> >>SNA and X.25 tended to emphasize the ability to fine tune access to a >>limited number of well-known resources, with relatively well-understood >>traffic patterns. The Internet, however, has emphasized arbitrary and >>flexible connectivity, possibly to the detriment of performance tuning and >>reliability. > >well the strategies for performance tuning are certainly different. > >[stuff cut] >> >>Web cacheing would seem to encourage traffic to stay local. > >ahhh....yup. > > dave - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|