Re:

[Vadim Antonov <avg () kotovnik com>]

You mean you really have any other option when you want to interconnect
few 300 Gbps backbones? :)  Both mentioned boxes are in 120Gbps range
fabric capacity-wise.  If you think that's enough, i'd like to point out
at the DSL deployment rate.  Basing exchange points at something which is
already inadequate is a horrific mistake, IMHO.

Exchange points are major choke points, given that 80% or so of traffic
crosses an IXP or bilaterial private interconnection.  Despite the obvious
advantages of the shared IXPs, the private interconnects between large
backbones were a forced solution, purely for capacity reasons.

--vadim

On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Daniel L. Golding wrote:

> There are a number of boxes that can do this, or are in beta. It would be
> a horrific mistake to base an exchange point of any size around one of
> them. Talk about difficulty troubleshooting, not to mention managing
> the exchange point. Get a Foundry BigIron 4000 or a Riverstone
> SSR. Exchange point in a box, so to say. The Riverstone can support the
> inverse-mux application nicely, on it's own, as can a Foundry, when
> combined with a Tiara box.
>
> Daniel Golding                           NetRail,Inc.
> "Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness"
>
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> > There's another option for IXP architecture, virtual routers over a
> > scalable fabric.  This is the only approach which combines capacity of
> > inverse-multiplexed parallel L1 point-to-point links and flexibility of
> > L2/L3 shared-media IXPs. The box which can do that is in field trials
> > (though i'm not sure the current release of software supports that
> > functionality).
> >
> > --vadim