[123237] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alaska IXP?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Thu Mar 4 12:20:05 2010
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
In-Reply-To: <5986.1267722792@localhost>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:19:35 -0500
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:41:38 CST, Aaron Wendel said:
>> We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we =
set up a
>> local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a =
lack of
>> understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets =
people have
>> a hard time understanding how connecting to a competitor benefits =
them.
>=20
> Does anybody have some numbers they're able to share? In the "two =
small ISPs
> in the boonies" scenario, *is* there enough cross traffic to make an
> interconnect worth it? (I'd expect that gaming/IM/email across town to =
a friend
> on The Other ISP would dominate here?) Or are both competitors too =
busy
> carrying customer traffic to the same sites elsewhere (google, =
youtube, amazon,
> etc)? Phrased differently, how big/small a cross-connect is worth the =
effort?
>=20
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore?
Obviously some of this always depends on the loop costs.
Going to try to write something up that would be useful for smaller =
ISPs.
The BGP barrier IMHO is quite high in most cases, not all the small ISPs =
carry their routes out to the edge in the same manner as the larger SPs.
- Jared=
