how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to 59126125
Re: Two problems, don't conflate them said by 59126125:As far as internet backbone capacity goes, there are solutions to deliver speeds at the prices consumers want. But innovation like this will go on the back burner if billing by the byte is adopted. The ironic part of that statement is that we have a plethora of backbone fiber today because backbone carriers bill based on usage. More infrastructure capacity = more revenue potential.
These are a bit like linking to things like GM's Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and declaring our dependence on fossil fuels solved.
There is a lot of existing infrastructure in place, and forklift upgrades are simply too costly for most companies to take on. The most cost-effective building block for backbone network expansion right now is 10GigE interfaces. There are currently efforts underway to finalize standards for 40GigE/100GigE, but the standard isn't slated to be completed until the middle of next year. One of the driving requirements for the 40/100 standard is that it needs to operate in existing 32/64 lambda DWDM systems, since carriers worldwide have billions of dollars invested in such systems.
This isn't a problem with backbone capacity, it's a problem with the costs associated with tapping into that capacity. There are a lot of discussions here about how a megabit is a megabit, and that's really not the case. The costs and complexity of upgrading a single backbone line from 1000mbps to 10,000mbps aren't the same as upgrading a hundred 10mbps connections to 100mbps. The bandwidth numbers are the same, but the interface costs / outage window negotiation / engineering effort are greater due to the increased scale. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Maybe its time for ISPs to invest in edge caching and for be cooperative with P2P efforts to put ASN prioritizing into P2P networks, split your upload traffic between 1/3 off-ASN, and 2/3rd same-ASN if you have enough same-ASN peers wanting data. No ISP should be complaining about same ASN traffic, the traffic costs are like one big LAN then. (P4P is sketchy in my opinion, ASN prioritization requires very little or no ISP participation, P4P sounds like your giving full peer selection ability and queue control to the ISP in real time.)
Remember in Asia with all those 100mbit and gigabit symmetrical FTTH, you can only do 100/1000 to other customers of your ISP, the speed to outside the ISP/outside the country looks like normal FTTH or normal cable modem service with speed in blocks of 5 and 10 mbitps, max 50 mbitps off the ISP/country. | |
|
