[47871] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Interconnects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Granados)
Fri May 17 13:16:48 2002
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Granados <scott@graphidelix.net>
To: todd glassey <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>,
ren <ren@internet.rockstar.org>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <093601c1fda5$42a8bb70$020aff0a@home.glassey.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205171014590.1276-100000@penguin.graphidelix.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I'd like to second that as well. Paix pao1 where I had termination was
very worth while. Several ipv6 peers in there as well including nokea
and a few others. Just as an asside, it was well run as well as having
a lot of people to peer with.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
>
> PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as
> well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as
> such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul
> Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one
> providers.
>
> I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been
> for ages having a single digit customer ID.
>
> Todd
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ren" <ren@internet.rockstar.org>
> To: "Ralph Doncaster" <ralph@istop.com>
> Cc: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>; <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Interconnects
>
>
> >
> > That depends on your corporate needs for power, security, remote hands,
> > etc. The extended services found at Equinix & PAIX are very important for
> > many networks.
> >
> > -ren
> >
> > At 08:00 AM 5/17/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
> > >What about NYIIX/6IIX?
> > >Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects
> > >gives it a financial advantage over Equinix.
> > >
> > >Ralph Doncaster
> > >principal, IStop.com
> > >div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.
> > >
> > >On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Iljitsch,
> > > >
> > > > I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for
> > > > several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM
> based
> > > IXs
> > > > are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago.
> > > >
> > > > The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect
> > > > enabled. PAIX & Equinix. Equinix-Ashburn, PAIX-Seattle,
> Equinix-Newark
> > > > and Equinix-Dallas and others have seen participation grow with a
> diverse
> > > > blend of traffic from cable operators, telcos and content providers.
> > > >
> > > > Tier-1 means what? Look for growing sources of traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Your mileage may vary, -ren
> > > >
> > > > At 11:48 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For
> this
> > > > >purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks
> (rather
> > > > >than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So:
> > > > >
> > > > >- What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the
> world?
> > > > > MAE East, the Ameritech, Sprint and PacBell NAPs, PAIX, LINX and
> AMS-IX
> > > > > come to mind, but from where I'm sitting it's hard to judge
> whether
> > > > > others are important or marginal.
> > > > >
> > > > >- To how many of them do typical tier-1 and tier-2 networks connect?
> > > > >
> > > > >- Using private or public interconnects?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
>
