[165195] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Fri Aug 23 06:59:32 2013
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:59:12 +0200
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <A856F0FB-43CB-457B-BFB6-7647D9F9B3CF@pch.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
* woody@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Wed 21 Aug 2013, 21:04 CEST]:
[..]
>On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:27 AM, "William F. Maton Sotomayor"
><wmaton@ottix.net> wrote:
[..]
>>My anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already
>>been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming
>>self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question
>>applicable to any starting IXP.
>
>Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well
>enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their
>average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also
>essential that they have some basic familiarity with the different
>ways IXPs can fail, or fail to thrive, so that they can avoid
>mistakes others have made in the past. Over-spending, particularly
>on switches, is a huge killer of IXPs. Under-provisioning of
>circuits to the IXP is another big mistake. Failure to encourage
>local content and hosting is another.
Can you cite a few examples of an IXP going under because of
overspending on switch hardware? You call this a "huge killer"
so there must be dozens you can choose from.
-- Niels.
--
"It's amazing what people will do to get their name on the internet,
which is odd, because all you really need is a Blogspot account."
-- roy edroso, alicublog.blogspot.com
