North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Internet Video: The Next Wave of Massive Disruption to the US Peering Ecosystem (v1.2)

  • From: William B. Norton
  • Date: Tue Jan 09 23:28:10 2007
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BLgC8FRZwob9BYfThCnlRFkk4tuT+I41mWHIIQMkw1fXV0ort+VmFafleLavwKOtcn/T1aZHVhcXqJxk74AD1jZnACrytqv9fu2TkiFZgmMB74XW46evl/L25mY1je4iZA42Ua1/NOnZul7/ZPBf0MjT31/X+yxAh7wAsBz84n8=

On 1/9/07, Adam Rothschild <[email protected]> wrote: 
On 2007-01-09-12:08:16, "William B. Norton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] a few of the largest US ISPs are turning away these n*10G
> Internet video transit customers !

I'd be interested in learning of specific vendors/markets, along with
the reasons given.  Did they cite temporary capacity constraints, or
anything of greater long-term significance?


Yea, I found that interesting as well. There were "cascading issues"
cited by one Tier 1 ISP. First, the network equipment currently
deployed hasn't been paid for and they would have to go back and argue
for more $$ for a forklift upgrade.

Which leads to the second reason - the colos are out of space/power or
both. Usually both. So a forklift upgrade may be needed to replace the
current gear with the new monster CRS or better class equipment to
handle the emerging n*10G Video traffic demand.

Then that wouldn't be enough since the other Tier 1's would need to
upgrade their peering infrastructure to handle the larger peering
links (n*10G), having to argue to their CFO that they need to do it so
that their competitors can support the massive BW customers.

Then even if the peers all upgraded the peering gear at the same time,
the backbones would have to be upgraded as well to get that traffic
out of the IXes and out to the eyeball networks.

Bill

Here in the New York metro, you'd be hard pressed to find a vendor
willing to turn away a 10G transit deal and the associated revenue.
In the past few months, I've been approached by half a dozen or so
major carriers eager to sell 10 gigabit ports, and with the capacity
to deliver.  If your customers are, indeed, reporting a widespread
difficulty obtaining 10 gigabit ports from the larger players, I can
think of plenty of smaller ISPs and switch-based resellers who'd be
happy to carry their traffic.

While I'm greatly interested in Internet video and the need to come up
with new ways to deliver it more efficiently, I'd be weary of listing
the [lack of] availability of transit ports as contributing factor.

-a



--
//------------------------------------------------
// William B. Norton <[email protected]>
// Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison, Equinix
// GSM Mobile: 650-315-8635
// Skype, Y!IM: williambnorton