On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jon Bennett wrote:
3) As time passes, more providers either understand the benefits of peering at an exchange point versus paying ${UPSTREAM} to provide transit for all of their traffic, or their traffic levels grow to the point (see point 1) where peering at ${EXCHANGE} begins to make financial sense. Most providers lack the levels of traffic or the geographic footprint to peer with the big guys (UUNET, Sprint, AT&T, CW, Genuity, etc), who typically build private interconnections with each other in multiple geographically diverse areas. Private interconnects are normally not cost effective for service providers who don't satisfy those criteria, so for them, peering at exchange points is more financially/technically attractive.
Is there a need for additional IXs or are there too many today and some should be consolidated or shut down altogether?
For clarification I may use the terms IX and exchange point interchangeably. That would depend on each exchange point operator. There are now many smaller regional exchange points in areas that are far enough away from the 'big' exchange points that are likely to be self sustaining because of local interest. Many of them will probably not grow bigger than that, but I'd hazard a guess that the operators of the smaller exchanges didn't set out to become the next MAE-EAST (ok, bad example ;-) ) but rather to improve interconnectivity between local/regional companies for the mutual benefit of all exchange members, often on a cost-recovery basis. http://www.ep.net/ lists many exchange points around the world, large and small.
If there is a need for new IXs, where do you put them? Who decides where to build a new IX and how do you get service providers to show up there once it is built?
These days, that can be a chicken-and-egg question. There really isn't a formalized process for deciding where an IX should be placed. In the case of some of the regional points, they came about because someone took the initiative to build them. I'd imagine if you're located in a city where: 1) The cost of a circuit to the nearest exchange point is too high 2) There are a decent number of local organizations who may be interested in or capable of peering there then it may make sense to establish an IX. It doesn't take much to run a small one. You could do it with an Ethernet switch and a small amount of power and rack space to start. It may also help if you're not a service provider yourself. Sometimes local providers get standoffish about peering at an IX run by a competitor. Strange, but sometimes so is human/social psychology ;-) If can also help if your area/building is served by more than one telco. Getting providers to show up usually starts with some type of grass-roots effort, getting the word out on the street that you have a place where local providers can meet to exchange traffic. Getting to the point there the IX assumes a critical mass of sorts and makes sense to operate for the long term takes time and effort. jms