NTAC Peering Working Group

["David Crowe, Jr." <>]

hi michael,

On 05/24/2013 08:55 AM, Michael H Lambert wrote:
> On 24 May 2013, at 11:25, Michael H Lambert wrote:
>
> > Speaking pragmatically, I think I'm more concerned about congesting the TR-CPS 
> > links than removing too much headroom on the R&E links.  I won't argue that 
> > this view is *right*.
>
> Replying to my own mail (sorry!)...
>
> If there is a strong consensus that this view is flat-out wrong, then maybe 
> we as a community need to re-evaluate and re-justify the existence of TR-CPS. 
>  Perhaps we need to look at peering strictly on the local and regional 
> levels, even though that would mean more collective effort and the loss of 
> economy of scale.

in our community i think it has been shown time and time again that the 
collective choices of the connectors land with *both* (and probably 
more) views so they need to be accommodated.

that point notwithstanding, one big issue that will come to the fore if 
Net+ services are added to the TR-CPS side is the lack of overhead 
capacity available there.  the capacity made available to TR-CPS, both 
for customer attachment and intra-TR-CPS connections, is more frugally 
managed than on the R&E side; there is an explicit intent to control 
costs but it is also due to very slow allocation of resources.

since the available overhead capacity is much less generous than we've 
required on the R&E side adding more demand on the TR-CPS side will 
require adding more capacity to match or exceed current planning.

David