RE: [REPForum] Article about New Mexico's new IX and Co-OP

While not sure of Woody's issues, for us in NM peering is
really just about two things.

1. Improving connectivity
2. Reducing costs

So from that perspective interconnecting to other exchanges meets
both of those goals.

Getting fabric connected can take several different technical and
business models.

A)  One can actually glue the layer two fabrics together
B)  One exchange can install a mini-layer two copy of itself
    at another exchange point or co-lo  thus maintaining a 
    separate layer 2 system.

C)  One can drag a link to another IX and use layer 3 to link
    them.


A, has the problem of building out a large broadcast domain, not
something I think is wise without proper layer 2 gear, ops and
policy

B, seems more reasonable and is what folks in the LA are working
on doing these days.  It means that some have to have two cross connects
to reach both fabrics, but it also means choice and L2 separation



Having regional IX's link together also may help one IX reach a certain
based of willing peers that another region has.  Some willing peers
may not be able to afford building to your IX, but would be willing
to peer with you if you can touch their network.

For RURAL provides I think the "rules of the game" are much different
than the MSA based providers.  We in the rural markets must find ways
to work co-operatively in order to improve connectivity to our
customers.

I think Woody's issues about IX's linking may be based on both MSA type
IX's and the economics of such.

I do know that having two IX's in a small community doesn't work well
and that the operators of both should find ways to make them "one".


john brown


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Kruckenberg
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 10:28 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [REPForum] Article about New Mexico's new IX and Co-OP
> 
> 
> Bill Woodcock repeatedly mentions what a bad idea it is for 
> exchanges to interconnect, and how many exchanges have 
> failed as a result of providing inter-exchange connectivity 
> (apparently he had some personal involvement in at least 
> one case), and that inter-exchange connectivity is a kiss 
> of death. I haven't delved into this specifically with Bill, 
> so there is a lot of detail to this position, I'm sure.
> 
> On the other hand, many regional exchanges are already 
> interconnected or have plans to interconnect multiple 
> exchanges in their region or with other exchange operators 
> (ie PAIX connecting with SIX, CommIX interconnecting 
> multiple Utah cities, LAAP interconnecting multiple LA-area 
> exchanges).
> 
> What am I missing here? Or are these totally different 
> scenarios (dooms national-level exchanges, but critical for 
> regional/local-level exchanges)? Maybe someone who 
> understands the history behind Bill's statements could 
> elaborate?
> 
> Pete.
> 
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2003, John M. Brown wrote:
> 
> > In talking with people at Equinix and other LA based
> > IX's (LAAP, LAIIX, etc)  there is a willingness to peer
> > with IXNM as a Peering Org.  Instead of building multiple peering 
> > sessions with each local ISP, they can build a peering session with 
> > IXNM and get everyone.  Thus the cost of the peering 
> session is lower 
> > for them.
> > 
> > Some folks have policies that will not allow us to connect and we 
> > understand that.  For us any peer is of value and thus we 
> will attempt 
> > to peer with everyone.  The worst they can say is no ;)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jere Retzer [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:14 PM
> > > To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [REPForum] Article about New Mexico's new IX 
> and Co-OP
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Congratulations! What do you hear about the willingness of
> > > other networks to peer with you at Equinix? The tier 1s have 
> > > pretty exclusive policies, or is your target the overseas 
> > > ISPs? I think we'll all follow your progress with great 
> > > interest. Thanks.
> > > 
> > > >>> [email protected] 02/15/03 16:09 PM >>>
> > > http://isp-planet.com/business/2003/ixnm.html
> > > 
> > > We at IXNM are more than happy to help others
> > > out in achieving similar results.  Feel free
> > > to contact us on this list or in private.
> > > 
> > > John Brown
> > > Geek for IXNM, Inc
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>