DD> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500 DD> From: David Diaz DD> 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance DD> peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product DD> so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are DD> using this. But apparently CFOs love it Uebercheap longhaul would _favor_ the construction of local exchanges. Let's say I pay $100k/mo port and $10M/mo loop... obviously, I need to cut loop cost. If an exchange brings zero-mile loops to the table, that should reduce loop cost. Anyone serious will want a good selection of providers, and the facility offering the most choices should be sitting pretty. Likewise, I agree that expensive longhaul would favor increased local peering... but, if local loop were extremely cheap, would an exchange be needed? It would not be inappropriate for all parties to congregate at an exchange, but I'd personally rather run N dirt-cheap loops across town from my private facility. Hence I refer to an "imbalance" in loop/longhaul pricing; a large proliferation in exchanges could be precipitated by _either_ loop _or_ longhaul being "expensive"... and it seems expensive loop would be a more effective driver for local exchanges. DD> 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every DD> 100 sq Km. VoIP might be the app. Seems to be gaining a <minirant> By the time IP packets are compressed and QOSed enough to support voice, one essentially reinvents ATM or FR (with ATM seeming suspiciously like FR with fixed-length cells)... </minirant> DD> great deal of traction. Since it's obvious traffic levels DD> would sky rockets, and latency is a large concern, and there DD> is a need to connect to the local voice TDM infrastructure, Yes, although cost would trump latency. Once latency is "good enough", cost rules. Would I pay a premium to reduce latency from 50ms to 10ms for voice calls? No. DD> local exchanging is preferred. However, many VoIP companies DD> claim latency right now is acceptable and they are receiving DD> no major complaints. So we are left to guess at other killer DD> apps, video conferencing, movie industry sending movies DD> online directly to consumers etc. The above are "big bandwidth" applications. However, they do not inherently require exchanges... _local_ videoconferencing, yes. Local security companies monitoring cameras around town, yes. Video or newscasting, yes. Distributed content, yes. (If a traffic sink could pull 80% of its traffic from a local building where cross-connects are reasonably priced...) DD> 3) In order to get to the next level of peering exchanges... [ snip ] DD> Perhaps it's up to the key exchange companies to tie fabrics DD> together allowing new (tier2 locations) to gain visibility to DD> peers at other larger locations. This would allow peers at DD> the larger locations to engage in peering discussions, or DD> turn ups, and when traffic levels are justified a deployment DD> to the second location begins. Problem with new locations DD> are 'chicken and the egg.' Critical mass must be achieved DD> before there is a large value proposition for peers. Yes. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.