Re: customers and web servers and level one naps

[Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>]

> Easy does it Stephen..... sorry I misunderstood you.  I have not yet begun
> to work on the tape.  So let me reorient my question.
>
> You encourage ISPs to place web servers ON THEIR OWN NETWORKS, BEHIND
> THEIR ROUTERS.

Which is what everyone encourages people to do.

> I see now the point you are making and it is a critical one, but please
> have mercy when i make a mistake.
>
> Having said this, the web servers are still sited within PAIX and
> topologically a lot closer to the exchange switching fabric than they have
> been before.  This presumably offers some advantages for the preformance
> of those machines. The only thing i am trying to ascertain is to whether
> this has been tried at other exchanges or not and why.  As far as I am
> aware it has not.
>
> Bill Manning asked whether PAIX was a major exchange.
>
> No of course it is not.  But bill is your response meant to imply that at
> a major exchange, there is simply going to be too much traffic to add the
> web stuff?  Since the server is BEHIND the customer router the web
> traffic would hit the switch as part of the application layer traffic
> brought there by the customer.  therefor should it really make any
> difference to have the web traffic avoid the extra hops of
> traversing the local loop?
>
> what am I missing?

I suppose the theory is that you get more bandwidth somehow, or a 
more reliable connection, if you are collocated on top of someone's
router at an XP.

Depending on your provider's architecture, though, that might be the
last place you'd want to be...

Avi

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -