NTAC Peering Working Group

[Ryan Harden <>]

I've viewed TR-CPS, perhaps incorrectly, as a commodity path via Internet2 
and prefer it only slightly above traditional commodity/ISP paths and 
slightly below R&E paths like Internet2 R&E.

The question for me is whether we view this new session as a research 
endpoint that also happens to serve commodity, or a commodity endpoint that 
also happens to serve research.
The amount of bandwidth used by the session is irrelevant. If we view it 
commodity, home it to TR-CPS, and subsequently it takes up all available 
bandwidth, we should add capacity to TR-CPS. The same would be true for 
Internet2 R&E if we consider it a research endpoint.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion either way. I'm not hearing much 
locally about the desire to use it for research, but that doesn't mean it 
isn't happening or that other's aren't. I just don't want to call it 
commodity but stick it on the R&E side to avoid adding capacity to TR-CPS.

/Ryan

Ryan Harden
Senior Network Engineer
University of Chicago - AS160
P: 773-834-5441




On May 24, 2013, at 11:13 AM, "David Crowe, Jr." 
<>
 wrote:

> 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
>