In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:58:12PM +0100, Marty Strong wrote: > Yes, if the IXP is distributed across more than one building then you have > choice as to where you (and other people) put their equipment, so you may > have to go to another building to connect to certain peers. Sadly nobody > lives in a perfect world, so IMO having the IXP distributed across multiple > buildings is better as you can connect to all those who are in your building > directly, and peer with the rest over the distributed IXP.
I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong answer. The ISP who needs to connect to 100 ISP's at 50M each has a dramatically different need than the ISP that needs to connect to 20 ISP's at 6x100G each. Both exist in the world. The presenter clearly thought that a number of IXP's aren't serving their customers/members well. What we're finding out in this thread is how many folks agree or disagree! :) Personally I'm with another poster, the real problem here is colos that want to charge large MRC's for a cross connect. I know of at least one still trying to get $1000/mo for a fiber pair to another customer. For $1000/mo I can get GigE transit delivered _to my office_ by multiple carriers. To charge that for a cross connect is just so, so wrong. IMHO in building fiber should be NRC only, but if it has a MRC component (to pay for future troubleshooting or somesuch) it should be small, like $5/mo. That's $60 year to do nothing, and even if the $40 an hour fiber tech spends a hour troubleshooting _every fiber_ (which doesn't happen) the colo still makes money. Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpFz1LjS4KJJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
