Comments on: Equinix – Proxy for the Internet

By: Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:11:46 +0000

So one thing that is not mentioned here, and rarely in discussions of large data centers is that of supplied power per customer. 20A per rack really doesn’t cut it for big routers these days. If I have to purchase large equipment such as Cisco CRS multi-chassis devices, I have to buy an inordinately large amount of space just to get the power to plug this ’single’ device into, and even then, large colo facilities don’t like it. As power consumption for high bandwidth backbone gear, whether housing SoNET/SDH or Ethernet interfaces grows, this problem will get bigger. 30MW sounds impressive, but if one customer can only get 2-4kW per cage, is that very efficient use of space and HVAC?

By: Frank Coluccio

Frank Coluccio — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:37:36 +0000

I think if you look at research networks such as SURFnet6 of The Netherlands, two years ago, and a growing number of networks on NLR , along with the upsurge in MPLS and now Carrier Ethernet transport options (PBT, e.g.), and then look at how many large corporates are now outfitting their private (dark-fiber) networks at L2, you’ll find that the trend in collapsing Layer 3 down to L1 wavelengths and L2 Ethernet is already well along. Why did we have, and why do we continue to maintain, so many hierarchical instances of routers where they are not really needed in the first place? I chalk this phenomenon up to an absolutely superb selling job by those who brought us “The New World Network” template (consisting of four layers of routing in every node building _and _ service provider location) about eight to ten years ago, as one reason. Also, a greater familiarity with IP, which accounted for the new kids on the block remaining comfortable with routers, and not just a touch of bellhead vs. nethead bigotry, too, I’m sure.

By: Why I didn’t like Transport Gear Markets before and like them less now « Iain’s Chips & Tech

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:25:20 +0000

[...] am I saying this today? As usual I was inspired by a recent Andrew@Nyquist post. Today it is was on Equinix and Datacenters. The discussion is on transport, but it reminded me that transport is a supporting function of a [...]

By: Iain Verigin

Iain Verigin — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:49:37 +0000

Interesting. the inter-play between transport (L1), switching (L2), and routing (L3), and “services” (multiple layer) boxes is always confusing and the “beauty is in the eye of beholder” ( ie the network designer/user )

I’ve always wondered why option 2 hasn’t been used more often. The L2/L3 switch industry has made very little in-roads on this this ( they are mainly deployed as L2 boxes ). Big routers continue to sell well. It’s been happending for a while, too. Over 5 years ago I visited a major Canadian cable providers datacenter that was built like option 2. It consisted of one GSR, lots of low-end Cisco switches, and a backbone consisting of Extreme black diamond Modular Switches. It covered a huge geographic region — all of Alberta and BC. But not a big population. One reason I believed they could get away with this was that they owned the whole network.

It seems like transport is only required to support the “data-center”. The “end-customers” money comes from services and connections to routers. Thus the good equipment business continues to be routers and services boxes. The transport gear is not directly revenue generating ( which does not bode well for it ).

On the Cisco front. I’ve found it interesting that they dominate everything above L1. There are notable chinks in the armour with F5, JNPR, etc. But they still dominate the revenue generating “functions” and look to continue.

By: Bill Baker

Bill Baker — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 00:20:55 +0000

Thanks for another insightful analysis. I always felt that Cisco’s vulnerability lies with solution #2. If I can switch at cheap L2 prices why do I need expensive routers. Off-loading is the way to go.