North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: concern over public peering points
* firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Gibbard) [Mon 05 Jul 2004, 10:19 CEST]: [..] > The performance arguments are probably more controversial. The > arguments are that shortening the path between two networks increases > performance, and that removing an extra network in the middle increases > reliability. The first argument holds relatively little water, since > it's in many cases only the AS Path (not really relevant for packet > forwarding performance) that gets shortened, rather than the number of > routers or even the number of fiber miles. "Not really"? Not always, perhaps. But it's more the rule than the exception, I think. > If traffic goes from network A, to network A's router at an exchange > point, to network C, that shouldn't be different performance-wise from > the traffic going from network A, to Network B's router at the exchange > point, to Network C. Except that, due to "peering games" some companies tend to engage in, the exchange point where A and B exchange traffic may well be in a different country from where A, C and their nearest exchange point is. > Assuming none of the three networks are underprovisioning, the > ownership of the router in the middle shouldn't make much difference. > The reliability argument is probably more valid -- one less network > means one less set of engineers to screw something up, but the big > transit networks tend to be pretty reliable these days, and buying > transit from two of them should be quite safe. The correct phrasing is indeed "one less network" and not "one less router." It's rarely one device in my experience. -- Niels.