Internet Exchange Questions
I am a business school student studying the state of the telecom sector and specifically the Internet infrastructure. I am currently trying to understand the role the IX such as PAIX, Equinix, Telehouse, etc.. will play in the future where the number of service providers is drastically reduced relative to the environment they were created in. I think PAIX is a good example of this. MFN announced today that they were selling off PAIX. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on why anyone would want to buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling cross connects in the future. Jon Bennett --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Jon Bennett wrote:
I am a business school student studying the state of the telecom sector and specifically the Internet infrastructure. I am currently trying to understand the role the IX such as PAIX, Equinix, Telehouse, etc.. will play in the future where the number of service providers is drastically reduced relative to the environment they were created in. I think PAIX is a good example of this. MFN announced today that they were selling off PAIX. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on why anyone would want to buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling cross connects in the future.
Good question ;-) You will likely get a lot of different answers to your questions, depending on who answers, and their experiences in dealing with IX operators. My thoughts on the subject are: 1) While the number of service providers (ISPs, MSPs, ASPs, <insert letter for marketing buzzword>SPs, etc) appears to be on the the decline, it stands to reason that the amount of traffic present at an exchange point should remain relatively constant on average, and probably grow. This is because as service providers go out of business or are acquired by other organizations, the traffic that a given provider was carrying either gets displaced by customers taking their traffic/business elsewhere, or the traffic gets borged into the network of the acquiring provider. I base this on empirical observation from my viewpoint as a network engineer at a mid-sized service provider, not on actual observation. Anyone that has done such observation feel free to chime in ;-) 2) The profitability of an IX is tied to the equipment and design methodology in use, and of course the amount of traffic provider X can move on the exchange when they join. Bigger IXs with larger member lists can equate to better business drivers for providers trying to decide where and with whom to peer. Also keep in mind that not all providers peer equally, and some peer more equally than others. Sounds stupid, but it's true. Some of the larger, older exchange points, such as the MAEs (not the old MAEs, mind you), the AADS NAP in Chicago and the PacBell NAP in the Bay Area are based on ATM. Many newer exchange points are based on Ethernet (LINX, Equinix, NYIIX/Telehouse, etc). The cost per Ethernet port in my experience tends to be much cheaper than the cost per ATM port. This can make setting up an Ethernet-based exchange less costly to set up and operate. 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. As for your question re: PAIX, it is a well-engineered exchange point that has been around for a long time, with an extensive member list. That, plus whatever revenue stream PAIX has would probably make an attractive acquisition for several companies. The bottom line here is that I think that exchange points will continue to be technically viable - the Internet traffic that crosses them is substantial, and not likely to go away any time soon. hope this helps jms
Once upon a time, Streiner, Justin <streiner@stargate.net> said:
My thoughts on the subject are: 1) While the number of service providers (ISPs, MSPs, ASPs, <insert letter for marketing buzzword>SPs, etc) appears to be on the the decline, it stands to reason that the amount of traffic present at an exchange point should remain relatively constant on average, and probably grow. This is because as service providers go out of business or are acquired by other organizations, the traffic that a given provider was carrying either gets displaced by customers taking their traffic/business elsewhere, or the traffic gets borged into the network of the acquiring provider.
I would think that, depending on who bought/merged with who, traffic may decrease as the networks are merged. After all, there was some amount of traffic between those networks that probably passed through an exchange point somewhere that is now being handled internally.
I base this on empirical observation from my viewpoint as a network engineer at a mid-sized service provider, not on actual observation. Anyone that has done such observation feel free to chime in ;-)
Of course, what do I know; I guess we don't rate as "mid-sized" around here. :-) -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think that, depending on who bought/merged with who, traffic may decrease as the networks are merged. After all, there was some amount of traffic between those networks that probably passed through an exchange point somewhere that is now being handled internally.
That's certainly a possibility. I was thinking about the traffic displacement on top of regular growth. jms
$author = "Streiner, Justin" ;
it stands to reason that the amount of traffic present at an exchange point should remain relatively constant on average, and probably grow.
someone already mentioned the possibility of traffic that previously traversed the IX now being interprovider due to an acquisition. thinking of other ways traffic might decrease, as service providers (of whatever ilk) fold or are acquired, it might be possible that customers will shift to one of the big X (where X is the current number of major players aka "tier 1") either through churn or acquisition. if that premise holds then traffic that previously may have traversed an IX between a "tier 2" and a "tier 1" (whether it be peering or transit) might now be routed via private peering interconnects between two "tier 1"s. ie. as the market consolidates private interconnects may carry more load at the expense of IXs. my au$0.02 marty -- Skirwan - "And if pigs can fly, and I can ride one, and they fly me to hell, and it just froze over, and we all have ice cream..." [1] talonyx - "I really need to stop reading Slashdot while on codeiene..." [2] [1] - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28984&cid=3113144 [2] - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28984&cid=3113355
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:53:04PM -0500, Streiner, Justin <streiner@stargate.net> wrote a message of 72 lines which said:
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.
A small fix: unlike the other you mention, Genuity accepts peerings with small providers. You have to do a lot of paper work, you have to parse legalese, but it works.
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? 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? Thanks. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
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
At 12:24 pm -0500 19/3/02, Streiner, Justin wrote:
http://www.ep.net/ lists many exchange points around the world, large and small.
And for European IXPs there is now an association: http://www.euro-ix.net/ Which has details of the member exchanges. f
At 12:24 pm -0500 19/3/02, Streiner, Justin wrote:
http://www.ep.net/ lists many exchange points around the world, large and small.
And for European IXPs there is now an association:
Which has details of the member exchanges.
f
which is linked from the www.ep.net site... :) --bill
bmanning@karoshi.com wrote:
At 12:24 pm -0500 19/3/02, Streiner, Justin wrote:
http://www.ep.net/ lists many exchange points around the world, large and small.
And for European IXPs there is now an association:
Which has details of the member exchanges.
f
which is linked from the www.ep.net site... :)
But: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/IPv6_Internet_Excha nges/ Isn't listed there though :( And it lists afaik all, native IPv6 Exchange Points... more IPv6 stuff in the directory above it. Greets, Jeroen
which is linked from the www.ep.net site... :)
But:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/IPv6_Internet_Excha nges/
Isn't listed there though :(
And it lists afaik all, native IPv6 Exchange Points... more IPv6 stuff in the directory above it.
Greets, Jeroen
Well, this site: http://www.v6nap.net/ was supposed to be the the canonical v6 exchange list... :) (and its on the ep site...) Will examine & merge... --bill
bmanning@karoshi.com [mailto:bmanning@karoshi.com] wrote:
which is linked from the www.ep.net site... :)
But:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/IP/IPng/IPv6_Internet_Excha nges/
Isn't listed there though :(
And it lists afaik all, native IPv6 Exchange Points... more IPv6
stuff
in the directory above it.
Greets, Jeroen
Well, this site: http://www.v6nap.net/ was supposed to be the the canonical v6 exchange list... :) (and its on the ep site...) Will examine & merge...
And how stupid of me of not listing that one as I did know it existed. Added... unfortunatly can't set a <special> link or something Greets, Jeroen
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Streiner, Justin wrote: Hi, I don't know if the question was mainly intended towards the american based IXes. If so, then the below may be of little interest. If not, please read on. ---- There are scenarios when IXes are built and maintained by a non-profit body, (a .org for example). The peering policies of such IXes are also very appealing to small/mid range ISPs, since they may offer a one to many peering model (where the IX itself is an AS - you peer with it, and it peers with all). This allows an open peering based IX, where larger entities do not charge the smaller ones for the ability to peer with them. Running an IX by a 3rd party, not for profit, ensures among others, the ability to focus on quality rather than quantity, equal rights to all peers, flexibility of the service, and the ability to create a *community*, where exchanging information and learning benefits all of the peers, and helps improve on the IX itself. Such an IX will usually charge low connectivity prices, based on how much it costs them, plus maintenance (staff + service contracts with vendors) and a marginal value to allow for future expansion (bigger/faster equipment). There are a few examples around the world, one of which is the IIX (Israeli Internet eXchange). On a market economy, I don't know what is exactly the right place for such entities, and how well can they scale into a large scale operation, moving hundreds of terrabytes, and employing alot of staff. But, if you'll take a peek at LINX (www.linx.org), it would seem that it is possible. Usually, the people involved in setting up such an IX from the ground up, and also those running it, are people well known for their integrity and skill, and usually trusted among the peers they aim to serve. I hope this angle of IXs is of interest to the original person who initiated this discussion. best, --Ariel P.S. It would seem that Europe in general has more of these type of IXes than other places in the world. -- Ariel Biener e-mail: ariel@post.tau.ac.il PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
"Streiner, Justin" wrote:
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
I'd like to add another: 3) there is a "common" good that all the local ISPs need, that is best shared. I'm thinking of wireless. Since the band is shared, it is best run by a common organization on behalf of the local ISPs. Since they need to connect to the wireless anyway, they might as well peer with each other, reducing their upstream costs by the amount of local traffic.
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 ;-)
Yes, I ran into that in both the local places I tried to interest others in setting up peering exchanges. There were/are a lot of egos involved, who thought THEY would put their "rivals" out of business. Funny thing, many of them are out of business, and we're still standing. The Internet really does run better in a spirit of cooperation! I was strongly interested in the Israeli posting about co-operative non-profits, since that was what I was advocating here as a solution to the ego problem. But, Yanks were hard to convince on setting up co-ops, too. That old social spirit was lacking during the recent go-go years. Maybe it's time to try again? And maybe if enough of us got together, we could buy PAIX as our flagship? On the other hand, as a mercenary thought, we might get a better price on PAIX during MFN bankruptcy :-) -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Jon Bennett wrote:
Is there a need for additional IXs or are there too many today and some should be consolidated or shut down altogether? 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?
the "if you build it they will come.." strategy has surely passed. we will likely see some continued consolidation as the telcos restructure (ie paix to be sold yet again.) capacity and usage within the ramaining ixps will dictate the need for future growth. /rf
Is there a need for additional IXs or are there too many today and some should be consolidated or shut down altogether? 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?
Speaking for PAIX, we build where our customers tell us to. -- Paul Vixie <vixie@eng.paix.net> President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
> Is there a need for additional IXs or are there too > many today and some should be consolidated or shut > down altogether? 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? I know of 323 IXes today. http://www.pch.net/documents/data/exchange-points/ep-in-addrs.xls In my experience, there are a few states that local exchange "markets" go through: First, no exchange, or something which claims to be one but isn't. Then, inspiration strikes someone, and: Second, there's an exchange, and life is good. Then, idiocy strikes someone else, they determine that the existence of an exchange "validates the market" for exchange services in that region, and: Third, multiple exchanges spring up in the same area, tearing apart the switch fabric and ruining the economic reason for peering in the first place. Then, people grow to understand the market, and: Fourth, the different exchange-like services differentiate sufficiently that people can use peering-oriented exchanges principally for peering, and transit-oriented exchanges principally for transit. -Bill
Yo, Bill (sleepy)
I know of 323 IXes today. http://www.pch.net/documents/data/exchange-points/ep-in-addrs.xls
Well, this is one place where we diverge... :) I'd state that there are 323 prefixes in use at exchanges but that there are somewhat fewer switch fabrics in place, e.g. a single switch fabric can & does host more than one prefix.
-Bill
-- bill (grumpy)
> > I know of 323 IXes today. > > http://www.pch.net/documents/data/exchange-points/ep-in-addrs.xls > > Well, this is one place where we diverge... :) > I'd state that there are 323 prefixes in use at exchanges > but that there are somewhat fewer switch fabrics in place, e.g. > a single switch fabric can & does host more than one prefix. Correct. And there are sometimes multiple switch fabrics in one facility, usually in the case that there are separate fabrics/subnets for IPv4 unicast, multicast, and IPv6. -Bill
I know of 323 IXes today. http://www.pch.net/documents/data/exchange-points/ep-in-addrs.xls
Good to see AusBONE there, however it does seem that your recent public comments on AusBONE may need some clarification, specially when you have not bothered to seek any information from the people running it. There is no AusBONE Adelaide, it was/is SAIX, the South Australian Internet Exchange. Aside from that, you may wish to add an "under construction" for your Shanghai and Guangzhou (aka Canton) entries, and add a line for a possible in Wuhan. Most of the provincial capitals are planning some form of regional IXP, for hand off traffic on LCR/SPF. India, well, scrub the Enron entry. It's far more likely that the first real working IXP in India will be "east coast", possibly Chennai (aka Madras) or even Hyderabad. There is a private MPLA exchange in Colombo, Sri Lanka, I'll query the MD of the company there for a URL. I have not been able to get information on: Pakistan, Bangladash, Cambodia, Burma/Myanmar, Vietnam, Brunei, Nepal, Tibet and Bhutan. [Several of these countries have a state monopoly telco, which would explain the total lack of activity.] --- Terence C. Giufre-Sweetser +---------------------------------+--------------------------+ | TereDonn Telecommunications Ltd | Phone +61-[0]7-32369366 | | 1/128 Bowen St, SPRING HILL | FAX +61-[0]7-32369930 | | PO BOX 1054, SPRING HILL 4004 | Mobile +61-[0]414-663053 | | Queensland Australia | http://www.tdce.com.au | +---------------------------------+--------------------------+
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 08:53:23AM -0800, Jon Bennett <jonb200192865@yahoo.com> wrote:
Is there a need for additional IXs or are there too many today and some should be consolidated or shut down altogether? 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?
Thanks.
There are many types of IXes built around many different needs, just as there are with ISPs. Large IXes: =========== Tend to have a number of Tier1/2/3 ISPs participating in a wide range of peering capacity (from 10meg to GigE/OC48), via either switch fabric (like LINX), or via mix of switch-aggregated and private peering. Where are these located? Generally in areas of high traffic pass-through due to continental or inter-continental fiber routing or teledensity: Silicon Valley, Washington DC, Chicago, NYC Metro, London, Amsterdam, Tokyo Drivers for these large IXes tend to follow the need of Tier1/2 networks to have multiple locations to peer so traffic engineering can be regionalized with robust alternate paths. For U.S. continental footprint, I would say the following list is important for good regional granularity: Silicon Valley, Wash D.C. Metro, NYC Metro, Dallas, Chicago, LA, and secondary: Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, Denver. For Europe, I believe you are seeing similar emergence of additional large IXes in other key cities, reducing the dependence on London and Amsterdam. Historical IXes: ================ Peering locations that had high historical value, but are no longer as significant as requirements and technology changed. Local IXes: ============ Many of these are so local-to-local entities can peer without going across more expensive regional or out-of-country links. Common participants may be local dial providers, local small web hosters, universities, local business and govt institutions. For many of these players, a T1 or E1 or 10-meg port may be considered a large investment, especially if hauled half way across a country with low teledensity. These exchanges may be critical to the Internet economics of these locations. Transit IXes: ============= These are often local IXes, where a larger ISP has also setup shop to offer transit for non-local traffic. Cheers, -Lane Lane Patterson Research Engineer Equinix, Inc.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage http://sports.yahoo.com/
As for your question re: PAIX, it is a well-engineered exchange point that has been around for a long time, with an extensive member list. That, plus whatever revenue stream PAIX has would probably make an attractive acquisition for several companies.
Thank you for those kind words. And if you've ever got a problem with PAIX, you know who to yell at. -- Paul Vixie <vixie@eng.paix.net> President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
On 19 Mar 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
As for your question re: PAIX, it is a well-engineered exchange point that has been around for a long time, with an extensive member list. That, plus whatever revenue stream PAIX has would probably make an attractive acquisition for several companies.
Thank you for those kind words. And if you've ever got a problem with PAIX, you know who to yell at.
Until MFN sells them in coming months in their attempts to pay off billions of dollars of debt... This industry is so far in the shitter...so many of the big names, including players from the early days, are in chapter 11 or about to be. It's a sad day when Qwest looks like a good company. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Andy Dills wrote:
This industry is so far in the shitter...so many of the big names, including players from the early days, are in chapter 11 or about to be.
I'm honestly surprised that I haven't had someone try to offer me a 'genuine steal' on 20-year IRUs in awhile ;-) jms
you know who to yell at.
Until MFN sells them in coming months in their attempts to pay off billions of dollars of debt...
No change is expected in "who you yell at if PAIX isn't doing a good job." (That is, "me.") -- Paul Vixie <vixie@eng.paix.net> President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 04:40:20PM -0800, Jon Bennett <jonb200192865@yahoo.com> wrote a message of 21 lines which said:
buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling cross connects in the future.
Not all exchange points are built with the idea of making money. Some are gratis and some are cheap, with the purpose of improving connectivity, not making money with the IX. In Paris, France, two IX (FreeIX and Pouix, may be three with the Sfinx, which is not a profit-maker) are explicitely built with that aim.
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Jon Bennett wrote:
I am a business school student studying the state of the telecom sector and specifically the Internet infrastructure. I am currently trying to understand the role the IX such as PAIX, Equinix, Telehouse, etc.. will play in the future where the number of service providers is drastically reduced relative to the environment they were created in. I think PAIX is a good example of this. MFN announced today that they were selling off PAIX. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on why anyone would want to buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling cross connects in the future.
When the number of internet exchanges/NAPs/MAEs started to grow in the early/mid 1990s, many people expected this to be a temporary phenomenon: surely, broadband ISDN would obsolete them. This hasn't happened. However, the reasoning still stands: why buy rack space in a remote place and go through all kinds of trouble to install a router there, if you can easily use some kind of switched/multiplexed service from a telco and directly connect with your intended peering partners over it, regardless of where everyone is located. (Hey, does this sound like private interconnects?) This may still happen as ethernet becomes telco-friendlier. But as long as you're in a location anyway, interconnecting with other networks who are there as well is always cheaper and easier.
### On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:46:57 +0100 (CET), Iljitsch van Beijnum ### <iljitsch@muada.com> casually decided to expound upon Jon Bennett ### <jonb200192865@yahoo.com> the following thoughts about "Re: Internet ### Exchange Questions": IvB> This hasn't happened. However, the reasoning still stands: why buy rack IvB> space in a remote place and go through all kinds of trouble to install a IvB> router there, if you can easily use some kind of switched/multiplexed IvB> service from a telco and directly connect with your intended peering IvB> partners over it, regardless of where everyone is located. (Hey, does this IvB> sound like private interconnects?) Among other reasons, the additive cost of all the loops starts to make this practice prohibitive. I believe Bill Norton's whitepaper, "Interconnection Strategies for ISPs", illustrates some of the issues of interconnection economics quite well and identifies where/when it makes sense to go into exchange points or establish private interconnects. IvB> This may still happen as ethernet becomes telco-friendlier. But as long as IvB> you're in a location anyway, interconnecting with other networks who are IvB> there as well is always cheaper and easier. Yes, you can reach a certain economy of scale by consolidating carriers, content providers, ISPs, etc under one roof. Many exchange point providers are banking on the atmosphere of a "public market" as a major selling point. -- /*===================[ Jake Khuon <khuon@NEEBU.Net> ]======================+ | Packet Plumber, Network Engineers /| / [~ [~ |) | | --------------- | | for Effective Bandwidth Utilisation / |/ [_ [_ |) |_| N E T W O R K S | +=========================================================================*/
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 12:46:57PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
This hasn't happened. However, the reasoning still stands: why buy rack space in a remote place and go through all kinds of trouble to install a router there, if you can easily use some kind of switched/multiplexed service from a telco and directly connect with your intended peering
^^^^^
partners over it, regardless of where everyone is located. (Hey, does this sound like private interconnects?)
You answered your own question. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
participants (19)
-
Andy Dills -
Ariel Biener -
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠karoshi.com -
Chris Adams -
Fearghas McKay -
Iljitsch van Beijnum -
Jake Khuon -
Jeroen Massar -
Jon Bennett -
Lane Patterson -
Martin -
Paul Vixie -
Rich Fulton -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Stephane Bortzmeyer -
Streiner, Justin -
Terence Giufre-Sweetser -
William Allen Simpson