[54679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: US-Asia Peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Mon Jan 13 02:51:59 2003
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 21:08:33 +0100
Cc: Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net>,
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>,
"Neil J. McRae" <neil@DOMINO.ORG>, nanog@merit.edu
To: "William B. Norton" <wbn@nemo.corp.equinix.com>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20030110161045.022b2ec8@nemo.corp.equinix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Bill,
On l=F6rdag, jan 11, 2003, at 01:38 Europe/Stockholm, William B. Norton=20=
wrote:
>
> If what you are saying is true, I'd really like to hear just a couple=20=
> of insurmountable technical problems with WAN L2.5 infrastructure=20
> interconnecting IX switches. For the sake of argument and to clarify=20=
> the discussion (Paul) let's make a few assumptions:
>
> 1) We are talking about an operations model where IX switches are=20
> operated by a single company.
> 2) The IX switches are interconnected by MPLS by a transport provider=20=
> offering that service.
> 3) An ISP on one switch creates a VLAN for peering with ISPs on any of=20=
> the other switches. This ISP VLAN is only for peering with the ISP=20
> that created this VLAN. Since he is paying for the VLAN traffic he has=20=
> this right.
> 4) The cost of transporting the traffic between the switches is bourne=20=
> by a transport provider who in turn charges the ISP that created the=20=
> VLAN in question.
>
> I can articulate a half dozen reasons why this is a good idea. Please=20=
> share with us why this is a such a bad idea. If it has been tried=20
> before, it would be helpful to point to specific the case and why it=20=
> failed, the technical failure scenario. I'd like to hear why/how it=20
> was worse by the distance between switches.
>
How do you see the failed AMS-IX expansion fit into this?
My (very simplified) summary of what happened was that :
a) ISPs where worried of the stability of the exchange (if I remember=20
correctly Jesper Skriver made a good mail on this)
b) The large operators saw that AMS-IX would be directly competing with=20=
them on transit and transport revenues and therefor in the end where=20
not interested in AMS-IX.
Note that there still was many (mostly small) ISPs that where in favour=20=
of the expansion.
At the time of the origin of the discussion I was peering co-ordinator=20=
at KPNQwest, and would have pulled-out of AMS-IX if the plans (and KQ=20
..:) ) would have moved on.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
