North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Roeland M.J. Meyer
- Date: Sun Dec 05 14:02:30 1999
No, but it depends on the capacity requirements. We looked into self-homed
vs. colo. Given that;
1) Most eCommerce projects need to be completed inside of six months.
2) Connectivity needs to happen in the first 3 weeks of project kick-off.
3) Telco WAN circuit delivery, for large capacity, takes anywhere from 6 to
18 weeks per circuit (depending on RBOC ... could be MUCH longer).
4) Facility build-out takes even longer (3 to 6 months).
For large capacity sites, colo is the only way, with potential self-homing
within two years. It just can't happen faster than that. Also, smaller
providers are out, because of public peering point congestion and that is
usually their only avenue. Large providers, with their own private
dark-fiber network, leaving only last-mile traffic to the public Internet,
appears to be the only way to go <sigh>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Alex Rubenstein
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 9:54 AM
> To: Dana Hudes
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: multi-homing
> On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Dana Hudes wrote:
> > The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players.
> > Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements?
> > Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and
> > pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the
> > result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus
> > customers. The message is loud and clear. If you want your server
> > farm to have good access, put it in a good co-location
> facility in the
> > US run by (or connect your co-located equipment to) a very large
> > provider who has good redundancy not only of their network
> as a whole
> > but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one
> WAN circuit
> > does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is
> exceedingly good and
> > fault-tolerant etc.).
> I'd disagree whole-heartedly (partly because I am not a huge, national
> Wouldn't you rather connect your equipment to a smaller
> company, that is
> potentially more flexible, has more clueful people, has
> better pricing,
> and is multihomed to maybe 3 or 6 or 9 backbones?