The Routing Over Large Clouds Mailing List Archive by date

["Andrew G. Malis" <malis@nexen.com>]

Steve,

> NHRP looks, to me, like a conspiracy by the telecommunications companies to
> cause local communication to a nearby router to be turned into long-distance
> calls on which they can charge their usual, exorbitant retail prices to
> end-users.  They know if they don't do that, they'll be relegated to the
> less profitable role of being bandwidth wholesalers, selling PVCs to ISPs.
> NHRP is clearly in the phone companies' interest, but is it in the Internet
> users' interest?

Ah, a conspiracy theorist!  Have you seen the new JFK in Dallas
videotape that just came out the other day? :-)

Seriously, NHRP is not confined to use in the public arena - as Ross
pointed out, it can also be used in private corporate nets, where the
net owner would (I'm sure) be happy to replace multiple hops across
the ATM network with only one, and eliminate unnecessary router hops -
it's less load on the routers, fewer VCs required on the ATM network,
and it's far easier to support any QoS requirements for the traffic
flow if it stays at the ATM layer (even WITH int-serv and RSVP in the
routers).

It can also save the user money when used over a public (pay per call)
ATM network.  Your argument is - why should I pay for an ATM call
between Palo Alto and Acton so you and I can exchange email when I can
just pay for a call to a local router instead?  (Actually, email is a
bad example - a better example might be receiving a multimedia stream
with particular QoS requirements as a result of a click on a web
page).

But anyway, the answer follows the tragedy of the commons - you want
to optimize your own local cost, but at the expense of increasing
router load along the path, and slowing the delivery of the packets as
they periodically "pop up" out of the ATM network, only to be popped
back down again to get to the next router hop.  My answer for this
scenario is that reduced router load and not having to buy those big
inter-router PVCs (or, at least, only needing smaller inter-router
PVCs) will reduce the cost of doing business to the ISP, which can
pass the savings onto its customers (including you).  So, even if you
have to pay the cost of the call to receive that video stream, your
overall costs should be less.  You also get a better quality
multimedia stream, so you can watch the JFK videotape without any
dropouts!

Cheers,
Andy