rmeyer@mhsc.com (Roeland Meyer) writes:

All one has to do is look at PAIX. The whole system looks like it is being used at real close to max capacity.

nope. some paix customers sometimes operate their ports at or near capacity. however, the paix ISO-L2 switch fabric is made up of switches whose backplanes have quite a bit of headroom, and trunks between those switches which have quite a bit of headroom. in spite of this ample amount of headroom, there are a LOT of private network interconnects between paix's customers, which are presumably being used for private peering. the "whole system" is being used at nowhere near its current capacity, and if we ever see a capacity limit on the horizon we will upgrade, upgrade, and then upgrade.

I have a client at AboveNet and my systems are on a CerfNet block. PAIX is between us. I feel their pain.

probably you should contact abovenet and/or cerfnet and find out why that is. it sure as hell isn't because of any capacity limits inside PAIX itself.

...

Exchange points are major choke points, given that 80% or so of traffic crosses an IXP or bilaterial private interconnection. Despite the obvious advantages of the shared IXPs, the private interconnects between large backbones were a forced solution, purely for capacity reasons.

and they aren't keeping up with the growth.

in what way?

This entire IX thread has been interesting. But, it appears to be one of those "good theory, implementation sux" sort of things.

a lot of companies live and die according to paix's ability to carry bits or photons or electrons to from other internet companies and/or circuit providers. i like to think that if "implementation sux", i'd've heard more about it before now. but please feel free to educate me. (maybe you should educate me offline and then post a summary back to the list.) -- Paul Vixie <pvixie@mmfn.com> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX) Abovenet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.