North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: US-Asia Peering
At 09:33 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:Bill - the argument seems like Proof by Rigorous Assertion:
I know it is a bad idea.
I really really believe it is a bad idea.
My friends say it's a bad idea.
Not one that I know says it is a good idea.
Therefore, and I can't emphasize this enough, in conclusion, it is a bad idea.
If what you are saying is true, I'd really like to hear just a couple of insurmountable technical problems with WAN L2.5 infrastructure interconnecting IX switches. For the sake of argument and to clarify the discussion (Paul) let's make a few assumptions:
1) We are talking about an operations model where IX switches are operated by a single company.
2) The IX switches are interconnected by MPLS by a transport provider offering that service.
3) An ISP on one switch creates a VLAN for peering with ISPs on any of the other switches. This ISP VLAN is only for peering with the ISP that created this VLAN. Since he is paying for the VLAN traffic he has this right.
4) The cost of transporting the traffic between the switches is bourne by a transport provider who in turn charges the ISP that created the VLAN in question.
I can articulate a half dozen reasons why this is a good idea. Please share with us why this is a such a bad idea. If it has been tried before, it would be helpful to point to specific the case and why it failed, the technical failure scenario. I'd like to hear why/how it was worse by the distance between switches.