Not everyone has a monopoly on UK wide connections... On 27/03/2014 12:00, "Neil J. McRae" <n...@domino.org> wrote:
>On 27/03/2014 11:34, "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> wrote: >> >>Neil, I'm puzzled as to how you think remote ixp peering might work, if >>not >>over physical/virtual l2 connections? > >I can think of one other way but that wasn¹t my point; in my view I >wouldn¹t take this approach at all. I can get L3 transit at a lower price >than the cost and agro of virtual connections and get overall a better >connectivity solution. > >If I need scale I can get a circuit and put a router on site and get a >bunch of other benefits and then get the real benefits of being at an IXP >in whole rather than virtually, with better QoE and a lot more certainty >about shared fates. YMMV. > >One thing that concerns me a great deal is the patch work of virtual >connectivity that¹s been created and I¹m concerned that many networks >really don¹t understand enough about the underlying network they are >operating on, or that there suppliers suppliers suppliers network is >working on. Perhaps even in a transition tx sense this issue still existed >but it was, at least in my view, more transparent and simplifies >modelling. > >Cheers, >Neil. > >
