Re: Creating exchanges
Hello All, This topic of Guam as an IX has come up many times in the past. Frankly, if it made since, it would have already happened. The #1 factor for an IX location in the Asia Pacific is the business case. Geographic topology does play a factor, but 1/2 circuit lease line prices are the major determinant if people will come to an IX. Guam's problem is that people have to pay the full circuit cost to get to Guam. These circuit costs are roughly 10X the cost of circuits in the US. In addition, pricing of the circuits are NOT distance sensitive. So for most of the region, the full circuit costs to Guam will be more expensive than a circuit to the US. One engineer/colleague working for a large US Internet backbone did work through the business case of placing a major hub in Guam for his Internet, FR, and X.25 traffic. He had the advantage of knowing what 'military' resources he can draw from (i.e. Typhoon hardened FM facilities) case he use to work for the Air Force in the region. The results was that the business case did not make since. Using Japan, HK, Singapore, and Australia as redundant hubs made better since. And that is what happened when they upgraded their backbone. Robert Mathews-ICICX wrote:
From an infrastructure perspective, though, Japan looks hard to beat. The pipes to Singapore/Jakarta/Australia, Guam/Hawaii/L.A.-ish, and somewhere in Oregon (?) all meet there. Ignoring regulations, tariff issues, etc., of course.
Japan and Singapore does look good because of the cable interconnects and the satellite foot prints. AIH/Abone (Japan - http://www.aih.net) and STIX/SIB (Singapore - http://www.stix.net) are two successes of international IXs - through both are commercial IXs - not neutral. Yet, each of them are working. Personally, after working this issue for 3 1/2 years, international neutral IXs will not work in Asia Pacific. National IXs are fantastic and work wonders. Commercial IXs are there to compete with the big US backbones in the region. Barry -- Barry Raveendran Greene | || || | Senior Consulting Engineering | || || | Singapore | |||| |||| | tel: +65 738-5535 ext 235 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. | e-mail: bgreene@cisco.com | c i s c o S y s t e m s |
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, Barry Raveendran Greene wrote:
Robert Mathews-ICICX wrote:
From an infrastructure perspective, though, Japan looks hard to beat. The pipes to Singapore/Jakarta/Australia, Guam/Hawaii/L.A.-ish, and somewhere in Oregon (?) all meet there. Ignoring regulations, tariff issues, etc., of course.
Hi Barry: Just wanted to affirm a matter which relates to the aforementioned statement - which you included in your last post. It was ANOTHER that made the aforementioned comment, and not I. I believe in extending credit where credit is due.. :-)
-- Barry Raveendran Greene | || || | Senior Consulting Engineering | || || | Singapore | |||| |||| | tel: +65 738-5535 ext 235 | ..:||||||:..:||||||:.. | e-mail: bgreene@cisco.com | c i s c o S y s t e m s |
All the best, Robert. ICICX. ------
A few salient points to this discussion. In terms of retail tariffs DISTANCE DOES NOT MATTER for International Private leases. What matters is AGGREGATE VOLUME, which in turn dictates retail pricing. Its cheapest to run leased lines to the point where all the other lines run to. Distance is irrelevant. Accordingly Guam and Hawaii are pretty shocking exchange locations - the fibre facilities are, as pointed out, simply points where the photons come up for air and a quick blow dry before taking another deep breath and getting wet again. For about the past 5 years the defacto Asia Pacific exchange location has been the US west coast. Why? - its the cheapest common termination point - the facilities there are ok - its the cheapest common termination point - the onward transit issue is far easier to solve - its the cheapest common termination point - the time penalty is about 120ms - which is ok - its the cheapest common termination point - its assumed to be politically stable Now it would be REALLY GOOD to find an international exchange point well within this region of the world rather than on the western edge. In the longer term (and here I'm talking 5 - 10 years) widespread use of use a facility could result in a cheaper and better Internet facility for this region, and the greater dispersion of traffic would remove critical earthquake-prone regions of the globe from their role in underpinning a large hunk of Internet connectivity. But to get from now to then is a process of interaction which includes the undersea cable systems, Internet peering, transit and settlement structures, technology-dictated degrees of freedom and common strategic purpose to pull it off.
Personally, after working this issue for 3 1/2 years, international neutral IXs will not work in Asia Pacific.
I don't share Barry's absolute pessimism here, but I think it will require patience as well as effort. Thanks, Geoff Huston
participants (3)
-
Barry Raveendran Greene -
Geoff Huston -
Robert Mathews-ICICX