On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote: > > New IXP founders typically contact our staff > > wow! i did not know we had the ixp god here! lemme go back to my > camera-ready dreadline. :) > > > - Three or more participants > > - Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which participants peer with > > each other, exchanging customer routes > > - New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a > > domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate) > > imiho, it is also nice if non-isp folk can participate, content, etc. >
It provides for much more financial benefit for the participants if they can. Pulling that traffic off of the wire at a N:N ratio usually results in enough of a cost savings to be a win-win for both. > > > - Participants do not receive a metered-rate bill based on utilization > > that's a new one. i am not sure i understand why. just seems a finer > grained case of 100mb for $1, 1g for $5, and 10g for $20 or whatever. > I completely agree. > > and i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into > the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have > played. > > randy > > Exchanges boxed in by incumbents and monopolies should absolutely be contacting content sources directly (peering@) to determine if there is a way that they can participate in the community directly. In most cases I can definitively tell you that there is likely a way to resolve the business issues that are roadblocks for both parties and to return substantial benefit to the exchange and it's community. That train left the station a few years ago. See Curacao. Best Regards, -M<