[113926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IXP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Thu Apr 23 22:35:42 2009
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:35:19 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20090424021716.GA56382@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> The value of an exchange switch is the shared vlan. I could see
> an argument that switching is no longer necessary; but I can see
> no rational argument to both go through all the hassles of per-peer
> setup and get all the drawbacks of a shared switch. Even exchanges
> that took the small step of IPv4 and IPv6 on separate VLAN's have
> diminished value to me, it makes no sense.
Cost. Shared port/ports versus port per peer, no physical cross connects
to be made for each new peer. For a medium sized network, an IXP can
provide cheap connectivity to many peers saving on transit costs.
I'll admit, my knowledge is limited given I exist in the non-existent
Oklahoma infrastructure, but I count the days (years?) until I can
afford to light a 10Gb ring down to Dallas and hopefully minimize the
number of ports and size of hardware I need down there to interconnect
my ring (and thus me) to everyone else. Hopefully with as few physical
interconnects as possible, as my Junipers ports are expensive for my
size. I'll never be transit free, but perhaps I can get peering through
an IXP and save some transit costs.
Jack
