Damn Jeff, you're always asking the easy questions aren't you? :-)
While I probably know about as much as you do on the subject, two things cross my mind:
You should always get fewer and faster hops if you are co-locating with one of the backbone providers like UUNET. Many of the other providers are simply re-sellers for the big boy's services.
I know that there is a bottleneck when going overseas. For instance, all traffic to Europe is routed through the boys at the NSA in Washington. It seems to me that global response would be faster if you had a co-lo on each continent you are serving.
Of course, real data on worldwide bandwidth saturation would be nice.
-Rob
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jeff Hubbs ">Jhubbs@niit.com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:57:38 -0400
>Can anyone point me to information regarding the global structure of the
>Internet in a telecomm/routing sense (this is distinct from the recent
>article(s) about the structure of the Web, which has more to do with linking
>structures than anything else)? The question I'm trying to ask is
>essentially this: what physical places (ISPs/telcos, I'm presuming) that do
>co-location for Web servers are going to tend to be the fewest router hops
>away from the most end users? Is there a way to evaluate the degree to
>which an ISP/co-lo is in the telecomm "core" of the Internet?
>
>The larger issue I'm assessing here is to what extent is it necessary to
>deploy servers globally to serve a modest Web function that has a global
>reach, assuming that the function in question isn't some kind of
>massive-bandwidth thing. If I'm a business in Chattanooga and I'm a
>subscriber to a Web service, how bandwidth-intensive a service does it have
>to be before it matters whether the Web service's servers are in Atlanta,
>London, or Tokyo?
>
>- Jeff
>--
>To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.
>
--
To unsubscribe: mail ">majordomo@ale.org with "unsubscribe ale" in message body.