value of co-location

Bottom line: about 270,000 pps per port, 14 microsec.
forwarding latency AND superior reliability. The choice
for NAP designers everywhere :)-

Bilal, I think you missed a word.

"Successful" seems to have been omitted between "choice" and "for".

Some NAP designers opted for packet shredders, and might
even be getting some thousands of pps total traffic (so they
claim, but then they seem to count very local (i.e.,
cross-town) ATM connectivity as "NAP" traffic), as opposed to
the low tens of thousands of packets per second *per port*,
with much of that being traffic between sites with about 30
times the delay * bandwidth buffering requirements.

Of course, the fact that the switched FDDI exchange points
have proven to be more reliable in practice than the ATM
exchange points have -- even with a fraction of the load --
tends to do nothing to diminish the religious fervour of
the people who assert that ATM NAPs are the ultimate single
answer to the needs of the Internet.

I wonder sometimes if their brains were cellified and passed
through an ATM NAP...


> Bottom line: about 270,000 pps per port, 14 microsec.

... how about 4 microseconds latency and 15 million cells/sec?
(for the same price)


(nsc ers does that I guess)