nanog mailing list archives
Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:42:08 -0700
On 10/9/10 5:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
I have been working on a similar project and I am finding it very hard to get the mobile operators to understand why we want as little latency as possible and they are not very open to people peering with their "wireless" backbone.
Possibly because the way that they tunnel GTP to the GGSN and the locations of GGSN devices relative to the handsets served preclude as little latency as possible.
I hope this will change with more and more eyeballs going wireless.
LTE provides an opportunity to move the bottleneck.
-----Original Message----- From: Holmes,David A [mailto:dholmes () mwdh2o com] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 9:42 PM To: Seth Mattinen; nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Mobile Operator Connectivity Some large telcos with wireless and wireline operations in the US maintain 2 separate backbones: one that I call "wired", that corresponds to traditional wired access where commerce servers are usually located; and one that I call a "wireless" backbone, where GSM/CDMA wireless devices are used to aggregate access-layer traffic. Both backbones consist of national fiber-optic, BGP-based networks. Surprisingly, some large telcos have a presence of both wireline and wireless backbones in the same colos, but the 2 backbone networks are interconnected, not in that colo, but at a single geographic location (with perhaps a single hot standby interconnection site), located, for example in northern Virginia. So, the worst case is that if the servers and GSM/CDMA devices are located in Southern California, even though the telco has a wireline and wireless presence in the local LA colo, GSM/CDMA access-layer traffic must traverse the continental US to northern Virginia and back to get to the server. -----Original Message----- From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:sethm () rollernet us] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:14 PM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity On 9/25/2010 13:37, Leo Woltz wrote:I am looking for some guidance from the list. We will soon bedeployingwireless payment devices (CDMA/GSM). We are looking at options onwhere tolocate the servers that will run the backend payment gateways; wewould likethe least amount of latency between the servers and the wirelessnetworks aspossible. The wireless networks we will be deploying the devices onare:Sprint PCSFor Sprint you can get a circuit to AS1239 and just take customer routes. Their PCS network is AS10507, but as far as I know the closest you can get to it is 1239. ~Seth
Current thread:
- RE: Mobile Operator Connectivity Ryan Finnesey (Oct 09)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Joel Jaeggli (Oct 10)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Cameron Byrne (Oct 10)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Joel Jaeggli (Oct 10)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Scott Brim (Oct 11)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Cameron Byrne (Oct 10)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Mobile Operator Connectivity Ryan Finnesey (Oct 09)
- RE: Mobile Operator Connectivity Ryan Finnesey (Oct 09)
- RE: Mobile Operator Connectivity Ryan Finnesey (Oct 09)
- Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity Joel Jaeggli (Oct 10)