North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Info on MAE-EAST
- From: Howard C. Berkowitz
- Date: Fri Jan 17 20:24:02 1997
At 2:17 PM -0800 1/17/97, dave o'leary wrote:
>At 7:00 -0800 1/16/97, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>>I can't claim to have recent numbers that suggest otherwise, but, some
>>historical information might at least be interesting. In the early 80s, I
>>did a good deal of X.25 capacity planning. At what was then GTE Telenet,
>>we found that up to 50% of our traffic stayed local in large cities. The
>>larger the city, the more that seemed to stay local...this was especially
>>obvious in New York, where a great deal of financial data flowed.
>remember that in the early 80's you basically couldn't lease a T1
>from AT&T (I think it was 82 or so when they were first tariffed?)
Dave, reality was funnier than that. It was 1980 or so when we actually
did get a T1 between Washington and New York, but eventually released it
because all of the DC-NY public network traffic wasn't enough to justify
that HUGE amount of bandwidth.
I did get the first nonmilitary T1 in the DC area in '77 or '78 at the
Library of Congress. The then C&P Telephone couldn't really figure out how
to charge for it, so we got it dirt cheap -- and it worked very well.
>(watch out for that DC voltage...ouch! :-).
I have a very painful memory of running my finger over a punchdown with
some stranded wire that slightly got loose and broke the skin. Knocked me
flat and sprained my shoulder.
>also DDS services were scarce, etc. So (expensive) low speed analog
>was the option for leased lines - and private networks were rare.
>Since then of course the fallout from Judge Greene has changed some
>things, and it is cheap and easy to put up a DS0 across town - the
>cost justification vs. per packet charges is a lot different.
>>Now, these old statistics reflect mainframe-centric traffic, and more
>>private-to-private than arbitrary public access. The latter is much more
>>characteristic of Internet traffic.
>>SNA and X.25 tended to emphasize the ability to fine tune access to a
>>limited number of well-known resources, with relatively well-understood
>>traffic patterns. The Internet, however, has emphasized arbitrary and
>>flexible connectivity, possibly to the detriment of performance tuning and
>well the strategies for performance tuning are certainly different.
>>Web cacheing would seem to encourage traffic to stay local.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -