North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: PAIX

  • From: David Diaz
  • Date: Thu Nov 14 10:24:38 2002

Well thanks for the agreement Ed.

Philosophically, I agree with Paul. I think 40 exchange points would be a benefit. At this time though, there is no model that would support it.

1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are using this. But apparently CFOs love it

2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km. VoIP might be the app. Seems to be gaining a great deal of traction. Since it's obvious traffic levels would sky rockets, and latency is a large concern, and there is a need to connect to the local voice TDM infrastructure, local exchanging is preferred. However, many VoIP companies claim latency right now is acceptable and they are receiving no major complaints. So we are left to guess at other killer apps, video conferencing, movie industry sending movies online directly to consumers etc.

3) In order to get to the next level of peering exchanges... from 6 major locations to 12.... we are going to need the key peers in those locations. Many dont want to manage that growing complexity for diminishing returns, as well as the increased cost in equipment. Perhaps it's up to the key exchange companies to tie fabrics together allowing new (tier2 locations) to gain visibility to peers at other larger locations. This would allow peers at the larger locations to engage in peering discussions, or turn ups, and when traffic levels are justified a deployment to the second location begins. Problem with new locations are 'chicken and the egg.' Critical mass must be achieved before there is a large value proposition for peers.

And to everyone that emailed me with their "we also are an exchange email." Yes, I readily admit there are other companies doing peering besides the ones I mentioned. I just did a quick post so I did not list every single exchange company. So you have my apologies, and I wont even hold it against you all that you were sales people....

dave



At 9:52 +0000 11/14/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
PV> Date: 14 Nov 2002 05:14:30 +0000
PV> From: Paul Vixie


[ re number of US exchange points ]

DD> Right now seems domestically 6 may be all we need.

PV> I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the "NFL cities") right
PV> now, and 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any
PV> "metro" with population greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area
PV> will need a neutral exchange point (even if it's 1500 sqft in
PV> the bottom of a bank building.)

Are we discussing:

1) locations primarily for peering between large carriers, or
2) carrier hotels including virtually all providers, where cheap
   faste/gige peering runs are easily justified?

If #1, I agree with David.  In the case of the latter, I think I
see what Paul is saying.  IMESHO, local/longhaul price imbalance
and the growth of distributed hosting {would|will} help fuel the
smaller exchanges.


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
To: blacklist@brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

--

David Diaz
dave@smoton.net [Email]
pagedave@smoton.net [Pager]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons