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

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jere Retzer wrote:

> NANOG about a year ago had a session on transit and
> emerging exchange opportunities. One of the comments,
> which I've read elsewhere is that it is generally
> thought "ok" to interconnect within a single
> metropolitan area but verboten to interconnect cities.
> As exchange operators we walk a fine line that maximizes
> exchange value to our members while not competing with
> them. I'm curious what your Utah service providers think
> of your interconnecting multiple cities. What impacts do
> they think this has on their ability to profitably offer
> service in these areas?

I don't know what the service providers think about us doing
this. I know that the few people I've talked to who are
currently at the regional exchange (mostly regional ISPs)  
are very interested, and have even offered to provide some 
of the connectivity. 

But this is an idea we're exploring, simply because we /can/
interconnect the two sites. These are within the same
extended metro area (they're about 45 minutes drive apart,
maybe 50 miles) which is one continuous metro area (though
lower density in the middle), so I'm not sure if that falls
into "interconnected metro sites" or "interconnected 
cities". What factors determine that?

My gut feeling, based on the conversations I've had so far,
is that interconnecting the exchange sites makes the
exchange (slightly) more attractive to current participants
and helps attract more of the same kind (municipal/govt
networks, large employers, regional services providers,
regional content providers). 

I don't believe it presents any kind of serious threat to
service providers that would normally interconnect the two
sites. Nobody would use the exchange to get from one city to
another (no cost savings and lower SLA), and I doubt many
(or anyone) would buy connectivity to both exchanges. On the
other hand, even the perception that we're going around the
metro carriers might be more reason for them not to join?

Pete.