Thanks for the feedback, Leslie.
Yeah it's more about having direct connections. I guess we can't really use
it to increase bandwidth except to people already on their network, but
those who are on the network do tend to use our sites a lot, since they
often have to do research.
I'm not clear on whether we would be merely peering with them or actually
adding another data link, since (for instance) Missouri University set up
their own IXP just to connect to their network. But peering seems to
achieve the desired result.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Leslie Carr <lcarr(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
FYI -
Also while I would see a benefit in peering, I would probably use the
transit or partial transit bgp group, since this is being like a
transit network, and I wouldn't want to overrule our better paths to
their downstream AS'es
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Leslie Carr <lcarr(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia and Internet2
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
As the network person, I don't really see any benefit in joining
internet2, though I would see a benefit in possibly peering with them
at Equinix Ashburn, since according to their looking glass they have a
more direct connection to several AS'es than we do.
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Jasper Deng <jasper(a)jasperswebsite.com>
wrote:
Sneakernets are not particularly convenient. If
the organizations of the
net wanted to use that for data transfer, the net wouldn't exist.
But I still think Wikimedia could increase/streamline accessibility to
its
information. It probably couldn't happen, but
they have more than enough
capacity to serve our content alone from eqiad (replacing or augmenting
our
existing links). Wikimedia also develops new ways
to reach more people
(such as MediaWiki mobile) like many of the organizations.
Internet2 is not set up as a true transit network, so this would not work.
Another information organization that's participating is JSTOR, which I
think is comparable to our projects as a source of information, so I
think
we can benefit from it.
I'd respectfully disagree, as a Wikidata editor, that Commons is the only
large database, because it may be large in terms of file size, but
Wikidata
has more tangible "hard"
machine-readable data, with much more to come.
But from a network perspective, wikidata is a small database since it
is text... and the only benefit of joining internet2 is the network
connection.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:41 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 October 2013 21:41, Jasper Deng <jasper(a)jasperswebsite.com>
wrote:
>
> > We could change that. Suppose a university wants to request the entire
> > knowledgebase of Wikidata or another project, or if we need to do a
mass
> > transfer of data from them.
> >
>
>
> Still not significant. The only really large database we have is the
> commons image database and a sneaker net might be the most practical
option
there.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/
--
Leslie Carr
Wikimedia Foundation
AS 14907, 43821
http://as14907.peeringdb.com/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>