> I'm debating whether to buy a crossconnect to CIX's 7513 and use it for
> UUNet traffic. I tried pushing 701 through the shared FDDI and it
> crawled, but that could have been the FDDI.
Well I have a @Home connection right now in PA and everything going to 701
is via CIX. Some days it is ok, but the connection sucks most days.
I don't understand why @home can't get a private peering to UUnet.
Both UUnet and @home got a dedicated port on the CIX router (good)
but essentially are using most of that for traffic to each other.
We stopped using CIX to UUnet a while ago due to flaky performance.
Sanjay.
I don't understand why @home can't get a private peering to UUNet.
Both UUNet and @home got a dedicated port on the CIX router (good)
but essentially are using most of that for traffic to each other.
Ugh, because UUNet will not let them. UUNet wants them to buy transit, not
just exchange bandwidth. UUNet could care less what the delay is, it hurts
@Home much more then UUNet.
We stopped using CIX to UUNet a while ago due to flaky performance.
Thats great, but what did you replace it with? Some transit connection?
The stakes are high for @Home. They can't just go get a transit connection
because it may threaten peering that they do have.
Which begs the question: How long will it be before Uncle Sam steps in and
begins 'helping' our industry?
I do not relish the thought of some bureaucrat telling me who I must peer
with, but at the same time, the current means of peering with the larger,
incumbent IP networks could use a bit more defining. Peering with someone
should not cost your company an arm and a leg, especially if you see only
marginal benefits from it. On the other hand, you can certainly be of a size
where you can justify peering with a large backbone easily, yet still not
meet all of the arbitrary rules imposed by the various providers!
What Madness is this, that shows us the way to universal connectivity,
hidden behind a wall of gold?
Paul Flores
Williams
[Remember, in the IP world, bandwidth is FREE!]