[123229] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alaska IXP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Hoyos)
Thu Mar 4 10:28:16 2010
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: ahoyos@xiocom.com
From: Andrew Hoyos <ahoyos@xiocom.com>
To: Jay Hanke <jhanke@myclearwave.net>, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:27:41 -0500
In-Reply-To: <000f01cabbaa$fcb20500$f6160f00$@net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, "Jay Hanke" <jhanke@myclearwave.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
> We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the "Chic=
ago
> Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilitie=
s
> with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connectin=
g.
> In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies =
at
> the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an
> exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to
> justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table.
>
> Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the loc=
al
> players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR situation=
s
> in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point.
Any interest by other anchor tenants in the area, such as the higher
education facilities? In Madison, we have MadIX[1], an exchange point hoste=
d
by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a presence in one of the
neutral carrier hotels in Madison.
That eliminates the carrier to carrier issues you run into in the smaller
cities, also helps with the "Chicago Problem" which we are very familiar
with here as well.
[1] http://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=3D6636
Andrew
