nanog mailing list archives
Re: US-Asia Peering
From: "William B. Norton" <wbn () equinix com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:53:08 -0800
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
Current thread:
- US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 02)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering David Diaz (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jared Mauch (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Joe Provo (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Jeff Barrows (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen J. Wilcox (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Randy Bush (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering William B. Norton (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Paul Vixie (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 03)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Stephen Stuart (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Bill Woodcock (Jan 09)
- Re: US-Asia Peering Neil J. McRae (Jan 10)