Re: Article about New Mexico's new IX and Co-OP

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 10:27:58PM -0700, Pete Kruckenberg reportedly typed:
> 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.

While I don't want to speak for Bill, I suspect that the fundamental
problem is that the service is billed as an exchange point service,
but costs the provider of that exchange connectivity the same as 
full transport capability.

I suspect that providers of these IXC services simply haven't billed
appropriately for them, and I suspect that the value to potential 
customers isn't as high as the cost, so this is probably what kills
these guys off.  Now, if the exchange providers themselves pay for 
this interconnection, the exchange providers lose money and eventually
close.

I have no idea if Bill Woodcock is on this list or not (if he is, hi
Dave!)

Dave

> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 

-- 
Dave Siegel
HOME   520-877-2593   dave at siegelie dot com
WORK   520-877-2628   dsiegel at gblx dot net
                      Vice President, IP Engineering, Global Crossing