s*****g
发帖数: 1055 | 1 Current Internet Exchange (or any other business exchanges that need to
provide ad-hoc peering services) architecture is mostly composed to big
chassis routers/switches, those big boxes are configured to provide a big L2
-fabric, either pure L2 or different flavors of MPLS L2 VPNs, problem with
this design is, per-port cost of big switches are high, network can get
overly complicated in control plane, big boxes tend to less stable than
fixed configuration because the software is much more complicated, and this
solution does not scale linearly.
People have been using spine-leaf topology with fixed 1RU/2RU small switches
in data centers for a while, Facebook extended this topology to a new level
in their hype-scale Iowa data center -- without using a single big box,
this topology provides multiple layers of fault tolerance, besides, the BGP
controller can do lot of interesting stuff.
Now can we not use the same idea in Exchange environment? we have a solid L3
fabric, we then provide VXLAN connectivity on leaf switches, this should
fix all shortcomings of current Exchange architecture.
Thoughts? maybe Exchange environments will never need that level of
scalability? | r********t
发帖数: 338 | 2 以前和SIX打过交道，IXP有不少利都很薄，员工不多，当然，像equinix这种是不一样
的。所以，要让他们用新框架，最好就是捐赠的形式。比如，SIX很多设备都是思科，
Arista, 华为捐的。他们自己偶尔也紧紧裤腰买一点设备。 | s*****g
发帖数: 1055 | 3 Current Internet Exchange (or any other business exchanges that need to
provide ad-hoc peering services) architecture is mostly composed to big
chassis routers/switches, those big boxes are configured to provide a big L2
-fabric, either pure L2 or different flavors of MPLS L2 VPNs, problem with
this design is, per-port cost of big switches are high, network can get
overly complicated in control plane, big boxes tend to less stable than
fixed configuration because the software is much more complicated, and this
solution does not scale linearly.
People have been using spine-leaf topology with fixed 1RU/2RU small switches
in data centers for a while, Facebook extended this topology to a new level
in their hype-scale Iowa data center -- without using a single big box,
this topology provides multiple layers of fault tolerance, besides, the BGP
controller can do lot of interesting stuff.
Now can we not use the same idea in Exchange environment? we have a solid L3
fabric, we then provide VXLAN connectivity on leaf switches, this should
fix all shortcomings of current Exchange architecture.
Thoughts? maybe Exchange environments will never need that level of
scalability? | r********t
发帖数: 338 | 4 以前和SIX打过交道，IXP有不少利都很薄，员工不多，当然，像equinix这种是不一样
的。所以，要让他们用新框架，最好就是捐赠的形式。比如，SIX很多设备都是思科，
Arista, 华为捐的。他们自己偶尔也紧紧裤腰买一点设备。 | I********x
发帖数: 858 | 5 我不太了解这个行业，如果它们没有什么利润，那么商业动机又是什么？没人愿意做吃
力不讨好的事情吧？
[在 rockymount (走走停停) 的大作中提到：]
：以前和SIX打过交道，IXP有不少利都很薄，员工不多，当然，像equinix这种是不一样
：的。所以，要让他们用新框架，最好就是捐赠的形式。比如，SIX很多设备都是思科，
：........... | b***p
发帖数: 700 | 6 for their side-biz like colo?
一样
科，
【在 I********x 的大作中提到】
: 我不太了解这个行业，如果它们没有什么利润，那么商业动机又是什么？没人愿意做吃
: 力不讨好的事情吧？
: [在 rockymount (走走停停) 的大作中提到：]
: ：以前和SIX打过交道，IXP有不少利都很薄，员工不多，当然，像equinix这种是不一样
: ：的。所以，要让他们用新框架，最好就是捐赠的形式。比如，SIX很多设备都是思科，
: ：...........
|
|
