[54594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US-Asia Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William B. Norton)
Thu Jan 9 20:03:21 2003
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:08 -0800
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>
From: "William B. Norton" <wbn@equinix.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301031033250.16696-100000@paixhost.pch.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 10:35 AM 1/3/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
> > connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
> > customers don't complain too loudly.
> > not that it's a bad long-term plan...
>
>Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance.
I'd like to understand your viewpoint Bill. The LINX consists of a handful
of distributed and interconnected switches such that customers are able to
choose which site they want for colo. Likewise for the AMS-IX and a handful
of other dominant European exchanges. By most accounts these are successful
IXes, with a large and growing population of ISPs benefiting from the large
and growing population. So I don't see the failure cases.
>It's one of the many, many ways in which exchange points commit suicide.
I'd love to see a list of the ways IXes commit suicide. Can you rattle off
a few?
> -Bill
