customers and web servers and level one naps

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

I see now the point you are making and it is a critical one, but please
have mercy when i make a mistake.

Sorry. I've had to defend that point a lot over the past year, and I
guess I come out of the blocks pretty fast when I see it nowadays.

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.

Yes, servers sited at PAIX are topologically much closer to the
exchange switching fabric than before. There are two advantages to

1. Fewer server responses backhauled over internal intrastructure. Of
course, there may be more requests backhauled through internal
infrastructure as a result. Grossly characterized, web servers tend to
be of the small-request/large-response category, so the net result may
be less load on internal infrastructure. Lots of factors come into
play, though; who else is peering at the exchange where your server is
located, peering policies at all the exchanges where you are present,

2. If, in fact, the server responses wind up having shorter paths to
their destinations, with less latency, the time during which server
resources are consumed to service a single request goes down.
Presumably, throughput goes up.

Bill Manning asked whether PAIX was a major exchange.

No of course it is not.

Although I'd certainly like to think it's going to be. :slight_smile:

                         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?

The server is behind the ISP router. Depending on the topology that is
chosen by the ISP, the server could be one hop away from the IX
switch, rather than two or three with the latency of a wide-area
circuit thrown in. Even if the hop count goes up to two or three, if
it's all in be same building, these hops could all be some flavor of
FDDI, rather than having DS3 circuits to get out of the building.