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.
>

Bill says that regional/metro exchanges should interconnect.

I personally think that even this is questionable.

> 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?
>


With interconnected exchanges, the exchanges are competing with the 
transport revenues and IP revenues of their members. Why would a 
regional coverage ISP or operator then connect?

- kurtis -