nanog mailing list archives
Re: value of co-location
From: "George H. Clapp" <clapp () bellcore com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 15:55:32 -0500
At 05:11 PM 1/20/96 -0500, Vadim Antonov wrote:
George H. Clapp <clapp () bellcore com> wrote:The reasons for co-location that have been mentioned so far include...- zero-mile circuitsThat means expansion of that "circuit" is free.
What is meant by free expansion of the circuit?
'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 difference is between the clearline circuit and circuit with 40% protocol overhead. Some big players are carriers themselves and want to use _own_ circuits whereever possible.
What isn't mentioned is the advantage of data-link layer multiplexing that the Fast Packet Services offer. Rather than bringing in multiple circuits and consuming multiple ports on your router, it's possible to carry traffic from customers as well as traffic to the NAP on that same interface. That's a fundamental point which is driving much of the deployment of the Fast Packet Services. 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 Vadim Antonov (Jan 20)
- Re: value of co-location Scott Bradner (Jan 21)
- Re: value of co-location Paul 'Corwin' Frommeyer (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Paul A Vixie (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Alan Hannan (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Paul A Vixie (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Tim Salo (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Paul Ferguson (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Sean Doran (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location mike (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Sean Doran (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location George H. Clapp (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Vadim Antonov (Jan 22)
- Re: value of co-location Curtis Villamizar (Jan 29)