RE: RE: [REPForum] REPforum get-together

This has been our view of transit exchanges in British Columbia. The exchange router's single main purpose is to encourage organizational peering between transit exchange users (univ, city, library, school, business, ...) so that the traffic remains
local. This hopefully provides an incentive for more users to connect to the local exchange.

In our model, the 'majors' provide the service to the users, and if the majors peer with each other, that's their business. We would like the facility-based providers (telco/cableco) to peer with exchange users, but that has interesting problems that are
not entirely political.

We have 3 functional exchanges, and one is in Prince George, BC, pop 80k. Two switches and a router in a rack in city hall. City providing dark fibre to participants.

One way to have the majors participate is to have the users demand it as part of an RFP. The univs did this, and chose the winning providers based, in part, on their commitment to participate in the local exchange. Sometimes the consumer can have an
effect on the producer.

I'm not saying the majors are *excited* about participating, btw. The battle is far from over.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Nielsen [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:58 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [REPforum] RE: [REPForum] REPforum get-together
> 
> 
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Jere Retzer wrote:
> 
> > >>> [email protected] 03/01/03 06:08AM >>>
> >
> > wrote: ... See www.stlrepstudy.org ( a very new site )
> >
> > Sounds like an interesting and potentially valuable study. One 
> > critical issue you need to address, and that we all face to some 
> > degree is how to get the major networks to participate in your 
> > regional exchange.
> 
> Why do you want to have the 'majors' at the peering exchange? 
> Keep Local Traffic Local and avoid the major players.
> 
> Christian
> 
>