North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: dsl providers that will route /24
- From: Steve Gibbard
- Date: Mon Mar 26 17:35:34 2001
I think you're getting caught up in semantics here. You're arguing about
total bandwidth used on the Internet (let's say amount of data times
distance traveled, for lack of a better metric), which will vary highly
depending on the individual setup. Bill is talking about the amount of
data sent over customer local loops, which in many (but of course not all)
Internet access billing arrangements is what costs the customer money.
Anyhow, quibbling over exact usage measurements doesn't really detract
from Bill's main point, that tunneling in and out of one network to get to
another uses more resources than not doing so.
Hopefully we can all agree that tunnels/VPNs/whatever you want to call
them use some resources, are extremely useful in some situations, but
aren't the best solution for every possible problem, without having to get
into yet another huge flame war.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > Three times as much is absolute worst case. In
> > >reality, it's more like
> > > twice as much for just his incoming traffic.
> > Uh, how do you figure? Each inbound packet comes into the tunnel-host
> > site, out of the tunnel-host site, and into the DSL host site. Each
> > outbound packet takes the reverse path. Three times as much bandwidth.
> > -Bill
> Each inbound packet goes from its source to the tunnel-host, then from the
> tunnel-host to its destination. That's two transits instead of one. If the
> tunnel-host is very close to the destination, the added leg will tend to be
> less than the first leg, so even a doubling may be an overestimate.
> As for outbound packets, why do they need to take the reverse path? There's
> no reason the tunnel can't be unidirectional. Even if the ISP is stupid and
> filters its customers' legitimate traffic, forcing them to encapsulate the
> outbound packets, the same argument still applies.
> Obviously, you have to choose a tunnel-host wisely. Ideally, you would pick
> one that meets your DSL provider very closely.
> In any event, the argument that VPNs "waste Internet bandwidth" rings
> pretty hollow. People buy Internet access to have Internet bandwidth to use
> for whatever applications they have. Heck, I would argue that USENET is the
> biggest waste of Internet bandwidth there is. That doesn't mean it should go
Steve Gibbard email@example.com