Traffic Engineering

In message <>, "Justin W. Newton" wr

Kent W. England wrote:

that point a pizza parlor owner says to himself "two out of every five of
my customers are on the Internet. Perhaps I need a web page." And,
suddenly, pizza on the Net makes a lot of sense and the traffic patterns
shift. As the density grows to 90%, local traffic becomes dominant over
distant traffic.

Georgaphically local, not topologically.

A *big* difference.

Unless we're willing to go back to regulated monopolies geographical
locality makes little difference in overall traffic patterns.


Not true, it is when geographical locality of traffic becomes significant
(lets say 10 percent of the traffic originating in a city is destined for
the same city, or even 5 percent, or maybe even 2 percent), that it makes
sense to make a very very strong push into many more local exchanges. I
see this eventuality as inevitable, and as such believe that encouraging
local exchanges to be of prime importance to our ability to route traffic
for our customers both inexpensively and quickly.

In four months our Austin Exchange point, with about 3/5s of the local
ISPs of significance connected, is exchanging about 400kbps average.
Considering most of these providers are using fractional DS3s, the
10% range is a comfortable number. By the end of the year we (Texas ISPs)
expect to have non MFS exchange points in all the major texas markets.

National backbones are welcome, if they can figure out the solution
to first exit routing, and network locality, that is acceptable to them.

The only real issue for national backbones is legacy configuration
issues, and route aggregation/network locality issues, with regard
to address assignments. For newer networks this should be a no
brainer to solve, (although it does inolve some more bit of work
in forcasting growth).