Re: Exchanges that matter...

[Vadim Antonov <avg () pluris com>]

Wayne Bouchard <web () typo org> wrote:

> Actually... many of the private exchanges are there for several other
> reasons as well. First, it can be convenient to set up a connection
> with a net you're passing lots of traffic to so you can go direct to
> them instead of through 7 or 8 odd routers outside your
> net. (obviously)

We were talking about tier 1 exchanges (i.e. between nation-wide and
world-wide backbones).  They by definition pass a lot of traffic between
each other.

> Second, it can be significantly cheaper to split the costs between the
> participants and not have to pay a third party for access to the
> exchange. (heck of a lot easier too..)

Well, if you have 6 providers you'll need 15 private two-party exchanges
to accomodate full connectivity in a region, vs a single public facility.

It is a classical example of economies of scale.  Consolidation of
exchange facilities makes things a lot cheaper. (Providing there's a way
to sustain that much traffic in one place).

> Third, and going along with the first point, private exchanges can
> help to more geographically orient your local corner of the
> network. That way, to get across town, you don't have to go to
> mae-west, over to denver, and back down to phoenix to travel 6 miles.
>
> This also serves to take a little traffic AWAY from the public NAPs
> and can help reduce congestion and problems there.

That would be fine, if traffic had high locality.  As is, practically
all Internet traffic is long-haul.  I.e. i strongly doubt benefits of
micro-exchanges will outweigh their drawbacks.

> The principle disadvantage of lots of small exchange points, as far as
> I see it, is that there may well be potential for A) many more paths
> to get from A to B, meaning that each router will hold that many more
> BGP entries and B) possibly a greater potential for route flap.

C) a lot more facilities not generating revenue.

--vadim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -