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: Wed Jan 10 12:40:35 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=eY+n1H4U5tcy5JI2im0HlAMf9Q84ApTYeMTQvAfFpk5VzDGbv654jBNhaUP1op40px8b+p7cEK+qcJUwL8F0/PaYjoXk4B6PmaeSkf56XxfRE7Wgoe/LGFHE9EM5l6iMTc1vipf3Nub0LEjngs1fWAze2q7bmWb1nThoCV6FU28=


Why are folks turning away 10G orders?


I forgot to mention a couple other issues that folks brought up:
4) the 100G equipment won't be standardized for a few years yet, so
folks will continue to trunk which presents its own challenges over
time.
5) the last mile infrastructure may not be able to/willing to accept
the competing video traffic . There was some disagreement among the
group I discussed this point with however.  A few of the cable
operations guys said there is BW and the biz guys don't want to 'give
it away' when there is a potential to charge or block (or rather
mitigate the traffic as they do now).

My favorite data point was from Geoff Huston who said that the cable
companies are clinging to their 1998 business model as if it were
relevent in the world where peer-2-peer for distribution of large
objects has already won. He believes that the sophisticated
peer-2-peer is encrypting and running over ports noone will shut off,
the secure shell ports that are required for VPNs.

So give up, be the best dumb pipes you can be I guess.

Bill

On 1/10/07, Brandon Butterworth <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

Someone will take the business so that traffic is coming
regardless, they can either be that peer or be the source
with the cash. If they can't do either then they're not
in business, I hope they wouldn't ignore it congesting
their existing peers (I know...)

> 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.

The Internet doesn't scale, turn it off

brandon




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