RE: a little thought on exchanging traffic

@>Anyone thought about eliminating large physical exchange points and replacing
@>them with a more distributed architecture?
@Yes, lots of folks have given it lots of thought.
@>Multiple data centers interconnected over ATM in a single metro area run by
@>indepdenant entities who are free to provide any level of service or value
@>add they wish.
@The fundamental problem is there are no magic pixie dust in this business.
@Sure, some people like to put out press releases saying how they've solved
@all the worlds problems using the Magic Frambulator. But what they've usually
@done is ignored half the problem.

Or...they have designed systems that have the wrong goals...

For example, some people design routers to "attract packets"
like magnets. They design protocols for routers to tell other
routers what packets to send them. Why on earth do people
and companies want packets ? Processing packets costs
time and money. Imagine a world where routers tell other
routers what NOT to send them.

Routers should be designed to "repel packets" and to quickly
get rid of the ones they have. They should also be designed
to send them as quickly as possible to the place they belong
and not to some black-hole called a NAP so that people can
puff out their chests about their NAP being bigger than the
next NAP.

With the introduction of next-generation Internet systems,
we might have a chance to reverse some of the thinking
that has produced the current bottle-necks. Organizations
like NANOG can play a key role because ultimately the
buck stops at your networks, routers, firewalls, servers, etc.
The key to the future is to make sure packets do not also
stop there or come there when you do not want them. :wink:

Has anyone nominated Jim for the Internet Kooks list, this year?

I should think he ought to be an emeritus member.

-- jra

He's not a kook. He is an agent provocateur who is paid by the telco
industry to disrupt Internet activities. The monopoly telcos want to
be able to show that the Internet folks are not capable of running the
network and that government regulation is necessary. They like a
regulatory regime because they have several generations of experience in
manipulating government bureaucracies to their own advantage and the
Internet currently lacks this.

Fleming is a very sharp-witted psych-ops who can appear perfectly rational
when it suits his goals. When he acts like a kook he does so in order to
spark outraged outbursts from his Internet guru audience but is careful
that a non-technical observer would se no cause for such an outburst in
Jim's statements. His goal is to methodically discredit everyone who has
any significant role in the design, management and operation of the
Internet and he is paid handsomely enough by the monopoly telco industry
that he can afford to buy a yacht and spend many months of the year living
in a foreign tax haven in the British Virgin Islands.

I'm assuming you can PROVE this, right Michael?

(My God, I hope so)

He (Michael) should have phrased it as an insinuating question, instead
of a statement, so he wouldn't have to.

(Just like Jim does).


True, but he didn't do that.

Still makes more sense than any other theory.

Hey Jim! Wheres' my cut?


How does one get one of these jobs? I'd love to spend half a year SCUBA
diving around the world off my private yacht. Where do I sign up?


We all need to learn to use the phrase "Isn't it true that..."