As you may know CIRA has been working with groups across Canada to establish new IXPs.
wow! i thought there were a lot of ixps, torix, vantx, ... are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big players trying to save the internet from itself? would some of the *local* providers in the areas who actually use the cira ixen care to report on the experience?
When we started this work, we didn't know that Vancouver already had an IXP
in depth research, eh?
We and BCNet are planning a town hall style meeting in late September, tentatively September 26, to talk about the IXP needs of the Vancouver area.
why are all my alarms going off? randy
Hi Randy, On 2013-08-20, at 01:05, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
As you may know CIRA has been working with groups across Canada to establish new IXPs.
wow! i thought there were a lot of ixps, torix, vantx, ...
The TorIX has been the most significant exchange point with growth and traffic for some years. I hear the QIX in Montréal (pre-CIRA) was active, but I know less about that one since I've never had occasion to connect and use it. Other exchange points have existed (or still exist) in Halifax, London, Edmonton and Ottawa but have struggled to attract interest despite enthusiastic and well-meaning activism on the part of individuals. I always had the impression that the BCIX in Vancouver was mainly a cooperative transit purchasing arrangement between academic institutions, and that all commercial peering on the west coast of Canada really took place in Seattle. Again, I have no direct experience however. What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help with incorporation and forming sensible bylaws and stimulating local discussion and interest. My perspective is that they have done a great job in Calgary and Montréal. It sounds like the approach in Vancouver (engage with existing efforts, see where CIRA can help) is following the same path.
are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big players trying to save the internet from itself?
I think they are as open and neutral as the local ISP communities want, and that CIRA is not dictating terms but rather enabling locals to do what they think is best for themselves. Open, Neutral, à la SIX (et à la TorIX) is what people seem to want. I think the work CIRA is doing here is sensible, pragmatic, sensitive and useful. A good use of my .CA domain registration fees. It'd be nice to hear more about their experiences in Phoenix, if there is a suitable slot available on the programme. Joe
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help with incorporation and forming sensible bylaws and stimulating local discussion and interest. My perspective is that they have done a great job in Calgary and Montréal. It sounds like the approach in Vancouver (engage with existing efforts, see where CIRA can help) is following the same path.
What has CIRA done in Calgary?
On 23/08/13 09:56, Mark Leonard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help with incorporation and forming sensible bylaws and stimulating local discussion and interest. My perspective is that they have done a great job in Calgary and Montréal. It sounds like the approach in Vancouver (engage with existing efforts, see where CIRA can help) is following the same path.
What has CIRA done in Calgary?
CIRA has done a great job in Winnipeg and Montreal. Nothing in Calgary.
Bill, not true. Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every major city, specifically for Calgary, CIRA worked with CYBERA to organize a town hall meeting in Calgary, on September 14, 2013. At the meeting, we had interested members of the community (Content delivery, ISP, government, R&E, CIRA, others) together to start the development of a new IXP in Calgary. Cybera being local, they took the lead in working with the community members in setting up governance, technical architecture, location, etc... CIRA actively participated in the various committees. CIRA is planning the deployment of equipment for the IXP, a .ca DNS Anycast stack, NTP servers and space for M-Lab nodes. We also work with PCH to have a PCH anycast stack installed in Calgary. We talked to Akamai and Google to be part of the Calgary IXP. HE actually did build to Data Hive (Preferred data center in Calgary). Doing our part in trying to get as much content, ISP, eyeballs, core internet services to be present at IXP. The AlbertaIX is cash poor at that moment in time so CIRA was looking at options to fund equipment or provide start-up grants, nothing was done up to now with respect to providing equipment or funds. Note: CIRA's job is not to go in and put a switch and leave. CIRA works with the community to get the IXP up and running. We have criteria to participate, the IXP must be a member based, vendor neutral non-profit organization with a viable trusted community to operate and sustain an IXP. CIRA is acting as a catalyst, not a doer. The community is the doer. Ask the people in Winnipeg www.mbix.ca and Montreal qix.ca . We are planning the launch of mbix this September as well. This is an example where the IXP build was successful. Back to Calgary, something special occurred, while we were all working on setting up AlbertaIX (we started fast but the pace slowed down significantly), a new IXP came to 'life' YYCIX in Data Hive, yycix.ca. Long story short, CIRA is waiting for things to settle before we continue providing more support and invest in deployment our .CA infrastructure. When the "dust" settles, we will deploy our .ca infrastructure and be a member of the communities (peer). There's a chance we're going to have two IXPs in Calgary, hopefully they would be in the same data center to leverage our investment, if we have two, then it's going to make it confusing for the new potential peers to pick the right one or both. All in all, CIRA's objective was to have 1 IXP in Calgary, we have one now, perhaps 2 in the future, so mission accomplished. It's up to the community to get their act together (no pun intended), and if they need our help, then we're there to help with governance, funding, technical expertise, etc... Also, we're doing our best with our limited resources, Jack (NOTE: English not my first language, if you're not sure what I mean, ask me, don't assume)
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Reid [mailto:bill@mbix.ca] Sent: August-23-13 11:55 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet
On 23/08/13 09:56, Mark Leonard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help with incorporation and forming sensible bylaws and stimulating local discussion and interest. My perspective is that they have done a great job in Calgary and Montréal. It sounds like the approach in Vancouver (engage with existing efforts, see where CIRA can help) is following the same path.
What has CIRA done in Calgary?
CIRA has done a great job in Winnipeg and Montreal. Nothing in Calgary.
Is Bill Sandiford a member of the board of both CIRA[1] and AlbertaIX[5]? Since AlbertaIX has no peers [2,3] is CIRA now going to investigate options to help fund YYCIX which does have peers[3,4]? References: [1] http://www.cira.ca/about-cira/about-the-board/meet-the-board/ [2] http://www.albertaix.ca/peers/ [3] https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/ [4] http://yycix.ca/peers.html [5] http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/as/54982 On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jacques Latour <jacques.latour@cira.ca>wrote:
Bill, not true.
Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every major city, specifically for Calgary, CIRA worked with CYBERA to organize a town hall meeting in Calgary, on September 14, 2013. At the meeting, we had interested members of the community (Content delivery, ISP, government, R&E, CIRA, others) together to start the development of a new IXP in Calgary.
Cybera being local, they took the lead in working with the community members in setting up governance, technical architecture, location, etc... CIRA actively participated in the various committees.
CIRA is planning the deployment of equipment for the IXP, a .ca DNS Anycast stack, NTP servers and space for M-Lab nodes. We also work with PCH to have a PCH anycast stack installed in Calgary. We talked to Akamai and Google to be part of the Calgary IXP. HE actually did build to Data Hive (Preferred data center in Calgary). Doing our part in trying to get as much content, ISP, eyeballs, core internet services to be present at IXP. The AlbertaIX is cash poor at that moment in time so CIRA was looking at options to fund equipment or provide start-up grants, nothing was done up to now with respect to providing equipment or funds.
Note: CIRA's job is not to go in and put a switch and leave. CIRA works with the community to get the IXP up and running. We have criteria to participate, the IXP must be a member based, vendor neutral non-profit organization with a viable trusted community to operate and sustain an IXP. CIRA is acting as a catalyst, not a doer. The community is the doer. Ask the people in Winnipeg www.mbix.ca and Montreal qix.ca . We are planning the launch of mbix this September as well. This is an example where the IXP build was successful.
Back to Calgary, something special occurred, while we were all working on setting up AlbertaIX (we started fast but the pace slowed down significantly), a new IXP came to 'life' YYCIX in Data Hive, yycix.ca. Long story short, CIRA is waiting for things to settle before we continue providing more support and invest in deployment our .CA infrastructure. When the "dust" settles, we will deploy our .ca infrastructure and be a member of the communities (peer).
There's a chance we're going to have two IXPs in Calgary, hopefully they would be in the same data center to leverage our investment, if we have two, then it's going to make it confusing for the new potential peers to pick the right one or both.
All in all, CIRA's objective was to have 1 IXP in Calgary, we have one now, perhaps 2 in the future, so mission accomplished. It's up to the community to get their act together (no pun intended), and if they need our help, then we're there to help with governance, funding, technical expertise, etc...
Also, we're doing our best with our limited resources,
Jack
(NOTE: English not my first language, if you're not sure what I mean, ask me, don't assume)
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Reid [mailto:bill@mbix.ca] Sent: August-23-13 11:55 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet
On 23/08/13 09:56, Mark Leonard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help with incorporation and forming sensible bylaws and stimulating local discussion and interest. My perspective is that they have done a great job in Calgary and Montréal. It sounds like the approach in Vancouver (engage with existing efforts, see where CIRA can help) is following the same path.
What has CIRA done in Calgary?
CIRA has done a great job in Winnipeg and Montreal. Nothing in Calgary.
I'll offer some perspective from BCNET on this discussion. BCNET has operated Exchange services in British Columbia for many years however the peering has primarily been a multilateral service and not advertised as what is considered a typical IX. BCNET is a not-for-profit consortium for BC post-secondary and research institutions and a small membership fee with BCNET was required to join. Our exchanges were called Transit Exchanges and participants have certainly benefited from the peering and have significantly lowered their Transit costs. On reviewing this about a year ago, BCNET decided that it was time to look at getting a more typical bi-lateral IXP co-ordinated in Vancouver. In the global Internet scene, Vancouver is not a huge traffic generator but is a very important location in Canada for interconnecting. At about the same time, other efforts were underway such as in Montreal to re-establish the QIX, Winnipeg and Calgary to startup, and CIRA raising the general awareness that there was a shortage of IXPs across Canada. These are all great efforts and require the community ISP support to make them successful. We are working towards this in Vancouver for an open exchange, shared layer 2 switch fabric, bi-lateral peerings, and community driven. Some organization does need to operate a site and the suggestion we have on the table is for BCNET to be the operator of a BC Internet Exchange, BCIX. BCNET has been a network-neutral player in advanced networks since 1988 and we promote fair and accessible access to everyone. We have also discussed opportunities with Peer1 and their local PIX services relative to the BCIX and we will have to see where that leads. A Town Hall to discuss this with the community is scheduled for September 26 and all local ISPs and any other interested parties are welcome to attend. The Town Hall will be the driver for what happens next. The general announcements of the time and location are scheduled to come out the first week of September. CIRA has been very helpful with us in scheduling and co-ordinating this effort - thanks Jacques. Thanks all for this great discussion topic. Take care, Marilyn Hay UBC, Manager Network Planning BCNET, Manager Network Engineering 604.822.4127 -----Original Message----- From: Jacques Latour [mailto:jacques.latour@cira.ca] Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 10:31 AM To: Bill Reid; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet ... Note: CIRA's job is not to go in and put a switch and leave. CIRA works with the community to get the IXP up and running. We have criteria to participate, the IXP must be a member based, vendor neutral non-profit organization with a viable trusted community to operate and sustain an IXP. CIRA is acting as a catalyst, not a doer. The community is the doer. ...
On 8/23/2013 1:30 PM, Jacques Latour wrote:
Bill, not true.
Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every major city, specifically for Calgary, CIRA worked with CYBERA to organize a town hall meeting in Calgary, on September 14, 2013. At the meeting, we had interested members of the community (Content delivery, ISP, government, R&E, CIRA, others) together to start the development of a new IXP in Calgary.
Cybera being local, they took the lead in working with the community members in setting up governance, technical architecture, location, etc... CIRA actively participated in the various committees.
CIRA is planning the deployment of equipment for the IXP, a .ca DNS Anycast stack, NTP servers and space for M-Lab nodes. We also work with PCH to have a PCH anycast stack installed in Calgary. We talked to Akamai and Google to be part of the Calgary IXP. HE actually did build to Data Hive (Preferred data center in Calgary). Doing our part in trying to get as much content, ISP, eyeballs, core internet services to be present at IXP. The AlbertaIX is cash poor at that moment in time so CIRA was looking at options to fund equipment or provide start-up grants, nothing was done up to now with respect to providing equipment or funds.
Note: CIRA's job is not to go in and put a switch and leave. CIRA works with the community to get the IXP up and running. We have criteria to participate, the IXP must be a member based, vendor neutral non-profit organization with a viable trusted community to operate and sustain an IXP. CIRA is acting as a catalyst, not a doer. The community is the doer. Ask the people in Winnipeg www.mbix.ca and Montreal qix.ca . We are planning the launch of mbix this September as well. This is an example where the IXP build was successful.
Back to Calgary, something special occurred, while we were all working on setting up AlbertaIX (we started fast but the pace slowed down significantly), a new IXP came to 'life' YYCIX in Data Hive, yycix.ca. Long story short, CIRA is waiting for things to settle before we continue providing more support and invest in deployment our .CA infrastructure. When the "dust" settles, we will deploy our .ca infrastructure and be a member of the communities (peer).
There's a chance we're going to have two IXPs in Calgary, hopefully they would be in the same data center to leverage our investment, if we have two, then it's going to make it confusing for the new potential peers to pick the right one or both.
All in all, CIRA's objective was to have 1 IXP in Calgary, we have one now, perhaps 2 in the future, so mission accomplished. It's up to the community to get their act together (no pun intended), and if they need our help, then we're there to help with governance, funding, technical expertise, etc...
What is the purpose of creating a second IXP in the same colo space in Calgary? From what I can gather YYCIX is giving away the first gigport for now. Unless CIRA is negotiating cheap transport/colospace/power/cross connects in Datahive, what is the point?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
As you may know CIRA has been working with groups across Canada to establish new IXPs.
wow! i thought there were a lot of ixps, torix, vantx, ...
Canada is geographically enormous. Long-haul transit is therefore costly, and controlled by few big players. Not good for local ISPs. You named 2 IXPs, and only got one right. A year ago, there were two active: TORIX in Toronto, and OTTIX in Ottawa. Ottawa is too close to Toronto to have an impact, so OTTIX has remained small. Having only 2 open IXPs, 400 km apart in a country 5000 km wide is not good enough. Since then, QIX in Montreal has opened up from a research-only IXP, to a neutral peering facility. MBIX in Winnipeg has started, and YYCIX in Calgary is up and running as well. Vancouver is still lacking. are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big players trying to
save the internet from itself?
I can speak for MBIX in Winnipeg, I'm part of the group working to get it fully operational. We are open, neutral. Any AS can become a member, and we are run openly by a board, elected by the members of the exchange. We have route servers, and direct peering is permitted as well. Costs are yearly, per-member, and low: $1200/yr. CIRA's donations have been pivotal in kickstarting this exchange with low cash costs. A couple of local ISPs have also donated to got this project started. Currently, the aforementioned established big players are not at all interested in our exchange, they don't talk to us. Only exception is Hurricane Electric, who recently joined, dropping wholesale bandwidth costs in Winnipeg *dramatically*. would some of the *local* providers in the areas who actually use the
cira ixen care to report on the experience?
I don't count as an operator, but so far, the connected members are learning much more about BGP and traffic flows, and interconnecting in ways never before possible in Winnipeg. BTW, in Winnipeg we still have the problem of cross-continent traffic paths to send data across the street. Worst case is something like this: Winnipeg--Chicago--Toronto--Vancouver--Calgary--Winnipeg. That's a 15,000 km round trip. MBIX can help with that. Our website for the curious:http://www.mbix.ca/ -- Jonathan
The old generation QIX (in Montreal) has been around a long time as an IXP where commercial players have been present. It was managed and operated by RISQ (a research network) but most of the members were commercial. The new generation of QIX is managed much like TorIX and continues to be operated by RISQ. There really isn't much new about the QIX other than how it is managed. It has always welcomed commercial players. In Winnipeg, isn't there also the WPGIX? Do you have two competing IXPs in Winnipeg? On 2013-08-20, at 16:42, Jonathan Stewart <jonathan.stewart@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:05 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
As you may know CIRA has been working with groups across Canada to establish new IXPs.
wow! i thought there were a lot of ixps, torix, vantx, ... Canada is geographically enormous. Long-haul transit is therefore costly, and controlled by few big players. Not good for local ISPs.
You named 2 IXPs, and only got one right. A year ago, there were two active: TORIX in Toronto, and OTTIX in Ottawa. Ottawa is too close to Toronto to have an impact, so OTTIX has remained small. Having only 2 open IXPs, 400 km apart in a country 5000 km wide is not good enough.
Since then, QIX in Montreal has opened up from a research-only IXP, to a neutral peering facility. MBIX in Winnipeg has started, and YYCIX in Calgary is up and running as well. Vancouver is still lacking.
are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big players trying to
save the internet from itself? I can speak for MBIX in Winnipeg, I'm part of the group working to get it fully operational.
We are open, neutral. Any AS can become a member, and we are run openly by a board, elected by the members of the exchange.
We have route servers, and direct peering is permitted as well. Costs are yearly, per-member, and low: $1200/yr. CIRA's donations have been pivotal in kickstarting this exchange with low cash costs. A couple of local ISPs have also donated to got this project started.
Currently, the aforementioned established big players are not at all interested in our exchange, they don't talk to us. Only exception is Hurricane Electric, who recently joined, dropping wholesale bandwidth costs in Winnipeg *dramatically*.
would some of the *local* providers in the areas who actually use the
cira ixen care to report on the experience? I don't count as an operator, but so far, the connected members are learning much more about BGP and traffic flows, and interconnecting in ways never before possible in Winnipeg.
BTW, in Winnipeg we still have the problem of cross-continent traffic paths to send data across the street. Worst case is something like this: Winnipeg--Chicago--Toronto--Vancouver--Calgary--Winnipeg. That's a 15,000 km round trip. MBIX can help with that.
Our website for the curious:http://www.mbix.ca/
-- Jonathan
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Morrell <christopher.morrell.nanog@gmail.com> wrote:
In Winnipeg, isn't there also the WPGIX? Do you have two competing IXPs in Winnipeg?
There are nominally competing efforts in Winnipeg (MBIX and WPGIX), Calgary (YYCIX and AlbertaIX), Montreal (QIX and Peer1), Vancouver (BCIX and Peer1), and even Toronto (TorIX, Peer1, CANIX, and IIX). I would not characterize more than one of those in each city as a going concern, however. https://pch.net/ixpdir -Bill
The main reason we are collecting feedback for Vancouver is that both VANTX and PIX are not member based IXP organizations, VANTX is owned and operated by BCnet, a R&E organization, and PIX is owned and operated by Peer1. We heard from a few people in Vancouver that they would like to have a true open, neutral and member based IXP, the idea for the town hall meeting is to build the community around a Vancouver IXP. BCnet has a good story to tell about VANTX, community support and IXPs across the province. If you care about Vancouver, then let us know. I'll see what I can do about the poutine :-) ________________________________________ From: Bill Woodcock [woody@pch.net] Sent: August 20, 2013 11:14 PM To: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Morrell <christopher.morrell.nanog@gmail.com> wrote:
In Winnipeg, isn't there also the WPGIX? Do you have two competing IXPs in Winnipeg?
There are nominally competing efforts in Winnipeg (MBIX and WPGIX), Calgary (YYCIX and AlbertaIX), Montreal (QIX and Peer1), Vancouver (BCIX and Peer1), and even Toronto (TorIX, Peer1, CANIX, and IIX). I would not characterize more than one of those in each city as a going concern, however. https://pch.net/ixpdir -Bill
I think CANIX in Toronto has been dead for years. I used to operate the switch for it in my days at UUNET in the 90s. In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1? On 2013-08-20, at 23:14, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Morrell <christopher.morrell.nanog@gmail.com> wrote:
In Winnipeg, isn't there also the WPGIX? Do you have two competing IXPs in Winnipeg?
There are nominally competing efforts in Winnipeg (MBIX and WPGIX), Calgary (YYCIX and AlbertaIX), Montreal (QIX and Peer1), Vancouver (BCIX and Peer1), and even Toronto (TorIX, Peer1, CANIX, and IIX).
I would not characterize more than one of those in each city as a going concern, however.
-Bill
On 2013-08-21, at 6:40, Christopher Morrell <christopher.morrell.nanog@gmail.com> wrote:
I think CANIX in Toronto has been dead for years. I used to operate the switch for it in my days at UUNET in the 90s.
Yes, very dead.
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least, that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked. Joe
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1? Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least, that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their transit infrastructure. randy
On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:57 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1? Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least, that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their transit infrastructure.
Correct. The ones in black are exchanges, the ones in gray are things that someone asserted to have been exchanges, or asserted will be exchanges. https://pch.net/ixpdir North America Canada (6) Calgary Calgary Internet Exchange 5 2013 Montreal Quebec Internet Exchange 8 Jan 2013 Ottawa Ottawa Internet Exchange 13 432M 10 Apr 2001 Toronto Toronto Internet Exchange 156 112G 1998 Winnipeg Manitoba Internet Exchange 8 126M 29 Jul 2013 Winnipeg Winnipeg Internet Exchange 5 May 2013 Calgary AlbertaIX Edmonton Edmonton Internet Exchange Montreal Peer1 Internet Exchange - Montreal 2010 Montreal Quebec Internet Exchange/RISQ Toronto CANIX Toronto Greater Toronto International Internet Exchange Jun 2011 Toronto Peer1 Internet Exchange - Toronto 2008 Vancouver British Columbia Internet Exchange Vancouver Peer1 Internet Exchange - Vancouver 2008 Victoria Victoria Transit Exchange -Bill
Correct. The ones in black are exchanges, the ones in gray are things that someone asserted to have been exchanges, or asserted will be exchanges.
glad it's all so black and white, well grey. :) as i use an old fashioned mail reader, it's all (set-foreground-color "navajo white") to me. but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc? randy
On 8/21/13 6:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc?
"keep your potatoes out of my pig." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
randy
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:06 AM, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> wrote:
On 8/21/13 6:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc?
"keep your potatoes out of my pig."
Ugh. Suddenly your talk of potatoes in pigs makes "colon-olizing" seem almost meaningful (methinks Randy meant "colonizing", but his colon-os got a bit carried away...:D ) Matt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
randy
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Correct. The ones in black are exchanges, the ones in gray are things that someone asserted to have been exchanges, or asserted will be exchanges.
glad it's all so black and white, well grey. :)
When different people are asserting different things (i.e. that something is, and is not, an IXP) the situation is, by definition, contentious. We move things into the "definitely an exchange" and show it in black text when we're able to observe a number of things: - Three or more participants - Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which participants peer with each other, exchanging customer routes - New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate) - Participants do not receive a metered-rate bill based on utilization In addition, we look for a number of signs of openness and transparency that would indicate that it's intended to be a good-faith effort to provide a point of interconnection between interested parties, rather than a regulatory compliance function, a set of private crossconnects that don't facilitation connection of new participants, a transit buyers' club, or a commercial layer-1/2 WAN carrier trying to re-brand their services. Which are, I would say, the four most common things that attempt to brand themselves as IXPs in disagreement with the general consensus that we observe. New IXP founders typically contact our staff early in the formation process, and we collect the information above through conversations with participants, direct participation in the exchange, and on-site visits. The weak point in this process is that when IXPs go defunct, we're often lacking a clear date of dissolution in our records, because they tend to fade away gradually, with very little public notice. Whenever anyone notices such a discrepancy, we very much appreciate their bringing it to our attention, so we can make the directory more accurate.
but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc?
If, by that, you mean Canadian ISPs peering in Seattle, you'd see that in the participant list... https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/detail.php?exchange_point_id=345 https://www.seattleix.net/participants.htm …and in theory the map here... https://prefix.pch.net/images/applications/ixpdir/origin_country_worldmap/34... …should be showing the Canadian participation visually, but the fact that it's not, at the moment, is indicating a data coding error on our ARIN whois import, which I'll have our guys take a look at. -Bill
New IXP founders typically contact our staff
wow! i did not know we had the ixp god here! lemme go back to my camera-ready dreadline. :)
- Three or more participants - Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which participants peer with each other, exchanging customer routes - New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate)
imiho, it is also nice if non-isp folk can participate, content, etc.
- Participants do not receive a metered-rate bill based on utilization
that's a new one. i am not sure i understand why. just seems a finer grained case of 100mb for $1, 1g for $5, and 10g for $20 or whatever. and i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have played. randy
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
New IXP founders typically contact our staff
wow! i did not know we had the ixp god here! lemme go back to my camera-ready dreadline. :)
- Three or more participants - Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which participants peer with each other, exchanging customer routes - New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate)
imiho, it is also nice if non-isp folk can participate, content, etc.
It provides for much more financial benefit for the participants if they can. Pulling that traffic off of the wire at a N:N ratio usually results in enough of a cost savings to be a win-win for both.
- Participants do not receive a metered-rate bill based on utilization
that's a new one. i am not sure i understand why. just seems a finer grained case of 100mb for $1, 1g for $5, and 10g for $20 or whatever.
I completely agree.
and i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have played.
randy
Exchanges boxed in by incumbents and monopolies should absolutely be contacting content sources directly (peering@) to determine if there is a way that they can participate in the community directly. In most cases I can definitively tell you that there is likely a way to resolve the business issues that are roadblocks for both parties and to return substantial benefit to the exchange and it's community. That train left the station a few years ago. See Curacao. Best Regards, -M<
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Randy Bush wrote:
and i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have played.
Facility neutrality especially. If the IXP is inside a non-neutral DC, it and its peers are always under constant threat of being squeezed out or shutdown by any number of circumstances. If the co-lo business were separate from the facility business, it may be a better environment since the IXP could convince the facility to host it, which the co-lo business could then be attracted to. All depends on the circumstances and environment. wfms
At 01:15 PM 21/08/2013, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
Facility neutrality especially. If the IXP is inside a non-neutral DC, it and its peers are always under constant threat of being squeezed out or shutdown by any number of circumstances. If the co-lo business were separate from the facility business, it may be a better environment since the IXP could convince the facility to host it, which the co-lo business could then be attracted to. All depends on the circumstances and environment.
We run our colo facility as a separate business entity than our facilities/ISP business. Our customers actually get two invoices if they buy services and colocate. When we opened the colo, we invited any facilities based carrier in the region to place fibre. My rule was they could have rack space for a patch panel in the MMR for free for cables coming in from outside. If they needed space and power, then they would have to pay for that. They could use the entrance conduits from the first manhole outside the building for free, but they'd have to get there themselves. Colo customers pay a standard fee for fibre pairs to the MMR patch panel, agnostic of which carrier they are connecting to - including our own services. We have some customers that don't buy services from us - just space and power. Just depends on their needs. There are 3 fibre providers in the building now. It seems to work out. Now if there was a legitimate community of interest for establishing an IXP here, we could do it, but alas, as has been pointed out, the case for TorIX is so compelling, and so much needs to flow through Toronto regardless, it seems the natural place to interconnect. --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Omnibus reply warning. Skip this one unless you're really into IXP trivia. On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
- New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate)
imiho, it is also nice if non-isp folk can participate, content, etc.
Of course, and that is best-practice. I was listing the things that were, to my mind, bare minimums. I think we can agree that if two ISPs interconnect with each other, but prohibit a third or subsequent ISPs from interconnecting, that does not constitute an IXP. There are a small but significant subset of IXPs are the only option within their regions and are universally recognized to be IXPs, yet still place some restrictions upon who can participate, often requiring that participants hold a national ISP license. We generally work to influence them to ease or remove those restrictions over time. For example, we've succeeded in getting that restriction lifted from the Beirut exchange, while we're still working to move the management of the Buenos Aires exchange toward best-practices in this regard.
- Participants do not receive a metered-rate bill based on utilization
i am not sure i understand why. just seems a finer grained case of 100mb for $1, 1g for $5, and 10g for $20 or whatever.
Certainly that's one way of looking at it. Can you think of any examples of something you'd consider to unequivocally be an IXP, yet charges a participant 1% more if they use 50.5mbps than if they use 50mbps? Generally this is one of the hallmarks of a layer-1/2 carrier that's trying to pass itself off as an IXP for marketing purposes. The principle drawback of such a charging scheme is that it removes the efficiency-of-scale incentive for ISPs to use the IXP more, and therefore removes their ability to charge their customers less as they use the IXP more, and thus the "exchange" fails to grow. Hypothetically, if the price were low enough, none of this would be a significant factor or disincentive, but in twenty years of IXPs and things-that-tried-to-be-IXPs, I haven't seen a successful example of such, while seeing quite a few that failed, where this was the primary distinguishing feature. It's not a common thing, but it's been a big red flag when it has shown up.
i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have played.
I'd say that carrier neutrality is a hard requirement in markets where that's a decision being made by the IXP (or more often the colo that hosts the IXP). There are a lot of markets that don't have competitive carriers, so this issue isn't yet tested at the time we're trying to figure out what's what. For instance, It was twelve years between the point at which the first IXP was formed in Singapore, and the first time anyone was able to run a competitive piece of fiber into it.
Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least, that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their transit infrastructure.
I agree that ISPs have switches, and will usually happily sell transit (or colo) to customers connected to those switches, and that that doesn't constitute an exchange. Peer1 presents themselves as a colocation provider (that also sells hosting). I think most people other than Peer1 would agree that Peer1's facilities don't constitute exchanges, and they're not marked as exchanges by our staff, in the directory. However, the line between Peer1 and, for instance, Equinix or Global Switch, is fairly fine… I think you'd find general consensus that Equinix switches are IXPs, and Equinix is a colocation provider (that also occasionally sells transit, to some of their customers, on occasion). So while the position you're expressing is certainly the majority position, it's something of a matter of degree and focus, and to some degree a judgment in the eye of the beholder, rather than something easily expressible in a simple objective rule. On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Clayton Zekelman <clayton@MNSi.Net> wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven exchange points.
ISPs tend to be very pragmatic on the issue of facility neutrality, whereas folks like regulators and those who are selling a product in the area get more religious about it. So ISPs don't tend to care much whether a facility is neutral, or run by one of their competitors, if they can see a clear value proposition in using it. That said, the price-point of the non-neutral for-profit IXP you postulate is not necessarily equal to or greater than zero… First of all, operating a switch is well within the core competency of ISPs, so they all know that the cost of doing it themselves is de minimis. Second, they know that the capex of building out to someone else's facility can be substantial, so while they're willing to do that when the future value of that investment, and their ability to recoup it, is protected, they generally won't do so if they can't see very clear protections (cash and contracts, not assertions and good-will). Third, they know that, while they have to make that infrastructural investment to reach the exchange, the owner of the facility does not. When the owner is not an ISP, that's not an issue, but when the owner is an ISP, and one of their competitors, it constitutes a significant relative competitive disadvantage. Although both parties lose in an absolute sense if they fail to exchange traffic, the other guy didn't have to drop a lot of money, and doesn't have as much to lose, so can afford to play hardball in negotiating over who gets to keep excess rent. In practice, you don't see this arrangement much (non-neutral IXPs) for two reasons: when IXPs are established through an open stakeholder process, all stakeholders make clear that they'd be happy to host the exchange within their facility, and once they've all gotten that off their chests, they move on to deciding upon a jointly-acceptable neutral location; and when a for-profit entity unilaterally establishes a non-neutral exchange, ISPs generally don't choose to use it, and it fails through the action of market forces. The halfway-case, neutral for-profit exchanges, generally a feature of neutral for-profit colocation facilities, are an interesting compromise and are often quite successful in the marketplace. So it's useful to look at them as a point of comparison. ISPs still know that they can do the switch thing themselves just as easily, so the cost still needs to be relatively low, and the points of value need to be things that are more difficult for an ISP to do internally. First and foremost, the neutrality and the large datacenter facility attract other people to talk to. Second, also very compelling, getting to take advantage of the benefits of scale; generators, security, etc., in a location where you only need one or two cabinets. Third, many of these businesses make their money elsewhere, through real-estate speculation or by issuing shares, so the services ISPs are buying are subsidized by those other lines of business, and are, literally, less expensive than if the ISP were to build it themselves.
Community of interest of course is the other magical ingredient that is necessary. Not sure how many ISPs would want to peer in Windsor...
If there was a legitimate community of interest for establishing an IXP here, we could do it, but alas, as has been pointed out, the case for TorIX is so compelling, and so much needs to flow through Toronto regardless, it seems the natural place to interconnect.
Folks in London (England, not Ontario) said the same thing about Washington D.C. before they got an IXP of their own up, as well. It's very easy to look at the status-quo and observe that it's functioning, while it's not always so easy to imagine how things will be better, if things pan out, in five or ten years. My experience leads me to believe that Windsor can support an IXP, and that if you don't over-spend and gold-plate it, it'll make money for you, and will grow over time. As will TorIX. It's quite likely that an exchange in Windsor will never be as large as one in Toronto, but that's no reason not to do it. A restaurant or gas station in Toronto might be more successful than one in Windsor, but it doesn't mean that nobody bothers to start a restaurant or gas station in Windsor. Same thing. Speed times distance equals cost, and always will. Exchange traffic more locally to keep speeds high and costs low, and stay competitive. If you just use an IXP in Toronto, ISPs in Toronto will always be more competitive than you will, because their cost-of-goods will always be lower. On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:27 AM, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
While it is admirable that CIRA (and probably other similar counterparts are watching) looking to establish IXPs…
I think CIRA has been very clear that they're not trying to establish IXPs, they're trying to provide any desired support to locally-based IXP efforts. There's a big difference. In order for an IXP to succeed, it needs a constituency of ISPs who understand that it's critical to their financial success. You can't just drop in and build an IXP for someone, and expect it to still be there a year later.
My anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP.
Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also essential that they have some basic familiarity with the different ways IXPs can fail, or fail to thrive, so that they can avoid mistakes others have made in the past. Over-spending, particularly on switches, is a huge killer of IXPs. Under-provisioning of circuits to the IXP is another big mistake. Failure to encourage local content and hosting is another. -Bill
* woody@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Wed 21 Aug 2013, 21:04 CEST]: [..]
On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:27 AM, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote: [..]
My anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP.
Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also essential that they have some basic familiarity with the different ways IXPs can fail, or fail to thrive, so that they can avoid mistakes others have made in the past. Over-spending, particularly on switches, is a huge killer of IXPs. Under-provisioning of circuits to the IXP is another big mistake. Failure to encourage local content and hosting is another.
Can you cite a few examples of an IXP going under because of overspending on switch hardware? You call this a "huge killer" so there must be dozens you can choose from. -- Niels. -- "It's amazing what people will do to get their name on the internet, which is odd, because all you really need is a Blogspot account." -- roy edroso, alicublog.blogspot.com
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>wrote:
Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also essential that they have some basic familiarity with the different ways IXPs can fail, or fail to thrive, so that they can avoid mistakes others have made in the past. Over-spending, particularly on switches, is a huge killer of IXPs. Under-provisioning of circuits to the IXP is another big mistake. Failure to encourage local content and hosting is another.
Can you cite a few examples of an IXP going under because of overspending on switch hardware? You call this a "huge killer" so there must be dozens you can choose from.anke
Having recently been through the startup process at an independent non-profit IXP, I can see spending too much on hardware being a problem particularly on supporting the ongoing hardware/software maintenance on the switch. Something else to think about, if an exchange is given an endowment from from outside entity it might be harder to build the commitment levels of participants/volunteers because it's too easy to solve the problems with money as opposed to member contributions. We went through 3 switch upgrades in 2 years and IMHO it built a lot of community. Each IXP will have a set of faithful founders and the key is growing that group beyond the initial group before the founders lose interest and move on to bigger things. Particularly before connecting to the IXP makes business sense to a company that won't connect just because it's cool. When the exchange gets over the hump were companies are saving real money it is much easier to keep the ball rolling and the exchange growing. Many exchange points never make it to that level. Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net>
On Aug 21, 2013, at 6:56 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Correct. The ones in black are exchanges, the ones in gray are things that someone asserted to have been exchanges, or asserted will be exchanges.
glad it's all so black and white, well grey. :)
When different people are asserting different things (i.e. that something is, and is not, an IXP) the situation is, by definition, contentious. We move things into the "definitely an exchange" and show it in black text when we're able to observe a number of things:
Randy wasn't shooting at you about your definitions. He was shooting at you for assuming people people were reading a technical mailing list in a non-text format. It's all black to me, too. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Randy Bush wrote:
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1? Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least, that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their transit infrastructure.
+1 The Peer1 setups remind me very much of what Group Telecom (defunct Canadian backbone provider) did in the very late 90's and the very early part of the last decade. They had them in nearly every city they had their facilities, but the GT IXPs never caught on ($$$ to get inside the facility and they played hard ball against incumbant access effectively making them closed unless direct GT customers.) wfms
At 10:21 AM 21/08/2013, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote
The Peer1 setups remind me very much of what Group Telecom (defunct Canadian backbone provider) did in the very late 90's and the very early part of the last decade. They had them in nearly every city they had their facilities, but the GT IXPs never caught on ($$$ to get inside the facility and they played hard ball against incumbant access effectively making them closed unless direct GT customers.)
wfms
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven exchange points. I have a facility in Windsor, Ontario that is well connected, has all the physical infrastructure necessary, the ability to provide relatively low cost local fibre loops, has an open policy towards other carriers providing transport loops, but alas, it wouldn't be perceived as "neutral". I would suggest that member driven exchanges typically produce the end product that people are interested in. Honestly, if TorIX wasn't member driven, but had the same policies as it does now, I'd still want to connect. Community of interest of course is the other magical ingredient that is necessary. Not sure how many ISPs would want to peer in Windsor... --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven exchange points.
Verrrry interesting that you raise that. IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing for-profit over nont-for-profit. As for ISPs doing it, there are clear examples in the wild today, but. Many buts. That ISP would have to be quite benevolent. In the long run. New MGMT/owners and then.....?
I have a facility in Windsor, Ontario that is well connected, has all the physical infrastructure necessary, the ability to provide relatively low cost local fibre loops, has an open policy towards other carriers providing transport loops, but alas, it wouldn't be perceived as "neutral".
The only reason why we (OttIX) followed the path of not-for-porfit (and all that it comes with, from beloved loons to passionate supporters to the somewhat silent majority) was to give the community of interest (gawd what a PC-style phrase) assurance that the IXP would not be held hostage to a bottom-line or to the dictates of the single owner. In other words, neutral. (Now going for-profit could have been tempered with issuing one share per peer and having share-holders, etc, but we're starting to delve into philosophical viewpoints which in turn have consequences, advantages and disadvantages too numerous to get into here.)
Community of interest of course is the other magical ingredient that is necessary. Not sure how many ISPs would want to peer in Windsor...
If I were looking strictly at bottomline and had the same cost option between connecting to an IX in Ottawa/Windsor as going to Toronto, I'd go to Toronto. $dayjob was public sector: We believed the more we peer with, the greater the benefit to public citizen (along being able to divide and conquer potential DDOS). Of course there are those who don't subscribe to that notion... so what do I know? But, do what we did, throw it out there and try it just to see if there's any interest Windsor. Get the packets flowing, forget the paperwork and managerial super-structure for now. Talk to CIRA, get them to listen to you, you listen to them. OttIX started with a Paradyne DSLAM as switch core and many peers coming in on $40/month xDSL lines, just to see if there was a point. That's one decade gone, already into another.... wfms
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven exchange points.
Verrrry interesting that you raise that.
IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing for-profit over nont-for-profit.
NMIX was a group of NM ISPs on a shared router at (last of?) the local feeders into what was once WestNet in the NSF days. It had a local NNTP server and (I believe) a couple of other services. It was useful back in the days when you could plumb some T1s to an AGS+ and make people happy. Mr. Brown's attempt at an exchange (IXNM) lasted about 8 years, and can probably be counted as an example of failure for such a model. The political side overwhelmed any technical advantage in Albuquerque. While it never became an importan IX, from the outside it looked like it was a successful bandwidth co-op with several local ISPs buying from it and benefiting from the local connectivity. Perhaps others can make a go at it? ----------- IXNM Opening e-mail --------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:45:27 -0700 From: "John M. Brown" <john@chagres.net> To: 'John Osmon' <josmon@rigozsaurus.com> Subject: IXNM goes live Friday 30-Jan-03 ----------- IXNM Ending e-mail --------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:51:33 +0000 From: John Brown <john@citylinkfiber.com> To: "1st-Mile-NM" <1st-mile-nm@mailman.dcn.org> Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IXNM End of an Era, death due to stupid politics.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven exchange points.
Verrrry interesting that you raise that.
IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing for-profit over nont-for-profit.
[NMIX couldn't pay its bills so it lost a lot of support/clients] /bill
wfms
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing for-profit over nont-for-profit.
[NMIX couldn't pay its bills so it lost a lot of support/clients]
Ah thanks for that update. You've reminded me of another point: While it is admirable that CIRA (and probably other similar counterparts are watching) looking to establish IXPs, my anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP and requires an understanding of the local environment. wfms
I would hope that at least the 3 largest cities in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) should be able to sustain IXPs. Hopefully Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg too considering the size of their populations and their distance from the largest 3 cities. On 2013-08-21, at 13:27, "William F. Maton Sotomayor" <wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing for-profit over nont-for-profit.
[NMIX couldn't pay its bills so it lost a lot of support/clients]
Ah thanks for that update.
You've reminded me of another point: While it is admirable that CIRA (and probably other similar counterparts are watching) looking to establish IXPs, my anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP and requires an understanding of the local environment.
wfms
On Tue, 20 Aug 2013, Jonathan Stewart wrote:
You named 2 IXPs, and only got one right. A year ago, there were two active: TORIX in Toronto, and OTTIX in Ottawa. Ottawa is too close to Toronto to have an impact, so OTTIX has remained small. Having only 2 open
That's not entirely accurate. The fact is the Ottawa market - as well as the Eastern Ontario market, had a large number of very small ISPs in the area a decade ago. So OttIX had many ISPs be litle traffic. After a major market conolidation (buyouts,m mergers, etc) the number of peers declined quite a bit - but the traffic increased. In the meantime, within the province of Ontario, LANX costs became effectively the same (to us) to go from one end of the city to the other as the cost to go between cities. Even at the $dayjob, we took advantage of this and simply dragged another LANX over to TorIX. Heck, even OttIX had a POP at 151 Fron in Toronto which saw enormous growth. So in that sense, OttIX achieved one of its primary objectives and that was to drive transit costs down in what is effectively a one-company town.
IXPs, 400 km apart in a country 5000 km wide is not good enough.
5000km in length by 100Km in width as most of the population lives within 100Km of the Canada-US border, but yes, it's a big country.
Since then, QIX in Montreal has opened up from a research-only IXP, to a neutral peering facility. MBIX in Winnipeg has started, and YYCIX in Calgary is up and running as well. Vancouver is still lacking.
BCNet would beg to differ. :-) There's also VicTX in Victoria run by BCNet. (Granted, some might simply say those are nothing more than BCNet aggregation hubs - but judge for yourselves please.)
Currently, the aforementioned established big players are not at all interested in our exchange, they don't talk to us. Only exception is Hurricane Electric, who recently joined, dropping wholesale bandwidth costs in Winnipeg *dramatically*.
IXPs in Canada have been particularly effective in doing this, especially in Ottawa where in 2003 it was something like $550 per megabit/month. One of the OttIX members (IGS) offered $200 and well, a number of OttIX peers went to town with that. The rate grudgingly dropped to $333 by 2006 until $MGMT allowed me to break out in other places to leverage even lower pricing. As of 2011 the best price I could get here was $90 but we already got out of Dodge by then. All to say the effects of an IXP in a certain locale were positive for the end-consumers (ISPs mainly) of transit.
BTW, in Winnipeg we still have the problem of cross-continent traffic paths to send data across the street. Worst case is something like this: Winnipeg--Chicago--Toronto--Vancouver--Calgary--Winnipeg. That's a 15,000 km round trip. MBIX can help with that.
For a good view of the Canadian perspective on those and more, see: http://www.ixmaps.ca/index.php We've contributed a lot of traceroutes, ditto via $dayjob given the diverse footprint of the network (national research backbone - not CANARIE's though) just to see how our traffic runs about the country as well as outside. Some surprises there. (I think CIRA funded that one as well.) wfms
participants (20)
-
Bill Reid -
Bill Woodcock -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Christopher Morrell -
Clayton Zekelman -
Hay, Marilyn -
Jacques Latour -
Jay Ashworth -
Jay Hanke -
Joe Abley -
joel jaeggli -
John Osmon -
Jonathan Stewart -
Mark Leonard -
Martin Hannigan -
Matthew Petach -
ML -
Niels Bakker -
Randy Bush -
William F. Maton Sotomayor