nanog mailing list archives
RE: Alaska IXP?
From: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron () wholesaleinternet net>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:41:38 -0600
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets people have a hard time understanding how connecting to a competitor benefits them. The key is to get a few solid players on board and cross your fingers that others will follow. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Jay Hanke [mailto:jhanke () myclearwave net] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:33 AM To: 'Andrew Hoyos'; 'Jared Mauch'; 'Sean Donelan' Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Alaska IXP? On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, "Jay Hanke" <jhanke () myclearwave net> wrote: <snip>
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the
"Chicago
. Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral
facilities
with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier
connecting.
In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies
at
the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table. Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the
local
players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR
situations
in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point.Any interest by other anchor tenants in the area, such as the higher education facilities? In Madison, we have MadIX[1], an exchange point
hosted
by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a presence in one of the neutral carrier hotels in Madison. That eliminates the carrier to carrier issues you run into in the smaller cities, also helps with the "Chicago Problem" which we are very familiar with here as well. [1] http://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=6636 Andrew
From the looks of the link it looks like there is a bit of traction at the
MadIX. One of the other interested carriers has talked to the University of MN and they showed some interest in participating. The trick is getting the first couple of participants to get to critical mass. Is the MadIX using a route server or is it strictly layer2? Thanks, Jay No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2720 - Release Date: 03/03/10 13:34:00
Current thread:
- Alaska IXP? Sean Donelan (Mar 03)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Antonio Querubin (Mar 03)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Sean Donelan (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Jared Mauch (Mar 04)
- RE: Alaska IXP? Jay Hanke (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Andrew Hoyos (Mar 04)
- RE: Alaska IXP? Jay Hanke (Mar 04)
- RE: Alaska IXP? Aaron Wendel (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Jared Mauch (Mar 04)
- Small IXP [was Alaska IXP?] Jay Hanke (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Scott Howard (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Sean Donelan (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Antonio Querubin (Mar 03)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Dale W. Carder (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Mr. James W. Laferriere (Mar 03)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Joe Abley (Mar 04)
- Re: Alaska IXP? Marty Anstey (Mar 04)