nanog mailing list archives
Re: value of co-location
From: "George H. Clapp" <clapp () bellcore com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 23:35:54 -0500
The reasons for co-location that have been mentioned so far include... - zero-mile circuits - a hardened location for equipment - to establish a local presence rather than building out one's own space. - skepticism about the value of the fast packet services; the skepticism has several flavors: - reduced bandwidth due to protocol overhead - less reliability than a shared FDDI - performance of ATM switches compared to FDDI switches 'Zero-mile circuit' isn't clear to me because, regardless of the technology used for the NAP, it's still necessary to purchase a circuit from your site to the NAP. The circuit is either included in the price of the fast packet service or purchased separately as a leased line to the co-location site. The next two points, 'hardened location' and 'establish a local presence,' make sense. If you do not have a presence in the city where the NAP is located, co-location serves that purpose. The various statements made concerning the value of the fast packet services are familiar arguments. I'd like to point out that CERFnet uses SMDS, the Northwest NAP (NIX) uses Frame Relay, and the San Francisco and Chicago ATM NAPs are carrying significant amounts of traffic. The Chicago NAP is experiencing peak traffic of nearly 80 Mbps. What is needed to move the debate forward are objective performance criteria and measurements, and I look forward to the work of the Benchmarking Methodology Working Group to provide that criteria. George Clapp voice: 201-829-4610 fax: 201-829-2504 page: 800-980-1298 email: clapp () bellcore com
Current thread:
- Re: value of co-location, (continued)
- Re: value of co-location Jim Forster (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Dorian Kim (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Jim Forster (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Kent W. England (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Stephen Balbach (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Paul A Vixie (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Russ Pagenkopf (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Stephen Balbach (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Shikhar Bajaj (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Dorian Kim (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location postel (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Mike O'Dell (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location George H. Clapp (Jan 19)
- Re: value of co-location Andrew Partan (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Warren K. Williams (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Paul Ferguson (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Dave Siegel (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Nathan Stratton (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Kent W. England (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Hans-Werner Braun (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Mike O'Dell (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Joseph Lawrence (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Bilal Chinoy (Jan 22)