North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: PAIX
Thus spake <[email protected]> > >None of these applications have any requirement for peering every 100km2. > >I'd expect my refrigerator, oven, light switches, etc. to be behind my > >house's firewall and only talk using link-local addresses anyways. > > Do you know how much traffic the high resolution MPEG4 video/audio stream > from an oven uses!? Why on earth would a network operator want to haul > that kind of traffic hundreds of kilometers when 99.5 % of it is going to > a 3G mobile phone in the same city. If there is an economic reason to peer locally, the carriers will do it; however, there is no technical reason to do so: bandwidth is cheap and 20ms RTT is irrelevant to any proposed application in this thread. As pointed out previously, it is currently cheaper to carry that MPEG-4 video to a remote exchange and back than it is to equip and support 96,400 exchange points in the US plus another 99,820 in Canada -- that's one for every 100km2. > Oh, BTW, ask someone at Cisco to explain to you how firewalls work. > Their purpose is security, not reduction in PPS or bps. Please tell me that was a troll... > People in general will communicate a lot more with other people who > live nearby no matter what the communications medium. Therefore > it is likely that as the Internet becomes a commonplace everyday tool > for commonplace everyday communications, the vast majority of the > traffic will be relatively local. Agreed; I think that one exchange per LATA (roughly) is a reasonable goal. But that's a far cry from one exchange per 3000 people in the US, or one per 311 people in Canada. Think about those numbers for a minute. > And while there may be some technical gurus who believe > in the purity of running a few mega peering points, over the long haul, > the customers of networks will reject this kind of centralized system in > the same way that they are rejecting every other form of centralized > control. Nobody is arguing purity; I think it's more "pure" to have a zillion exchanges, perhaps one in every person's house! However, there are issues, both technical and economic, which limit the number of exchanges that are feasible. Today, that number is a few dozen, not a few hundred thousand. S
|