> From: Alexander Koch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [..] > As another matter I do not believe in public peering at all > when you have flows to a single peer that are ore than half > of a full GE. Been there, was not at all nice. I guess more > and more operators will have less and less public IX ports, > and the open peering coalition will start wondering at some > point... The AMSIX has a lot of 10G peers. While they just > take two ports, and the AMSIX supposedly also being redundant > (and cheap <g>) it is just a time- bomb. How many times did > either LINX or AMSIX had issues (actually very rare!) and we > happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective > other IX... Say what you want, but public peering (yes/no) > has a lot to do with your amount of traffic, and your peers. > It depends. Thinking of reliability: FICIX over here in Finland requires all full members to join _two_ switches in physically separate locations from separate points in your own network, using redundant fiber paths. Result: a very reliable IX. In Sweden Netnod has IX facilities in five cities around the country. AFAIK most of the traffic exchange is done over public peerings in Finland and Sweden - very reliably.
--Kauto
