Nuno Vieira - nfsi telecom nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt
Sat Apr 18 03:23:30 CDT 2009

----- "kris foster" <kris.foster at gmail.com> wrote:

> painfully, with multiple circuits into the IX :) I'm not advocating  
> Paul's suggestion at all here
> Kris

Totally agree with you Kris.

For the IX scenario (or at least looking in a Public way) it seems Another Terrible Mistake to me.

IMHO, when you are in a Public IX, you usually want to reach everyone's network without hassling around.  Then it is your problem, and yours peer problem if we peer or not.  

When you overload a certain port at a Public IX, you rather upgrade that Port, or, Move particular bit pushers and movers for a Private Peering port (if it really makes technical and economical sense).

I don't see how this idea that came out there could benefit the operational daily works (For IX, For IX Customers) , also, it would require work from the (usually) Neutral IX, when users need to connect ear other, which, will lead in more money to pay.  (hey IX OPS.. we are company X and Z, and we signed a nice peering agreement.. can you please virtual patch us ?)  Where is the neutrality here ? Time ?  What if my equipment brokes at 3 AM and IX Ops need to change configs ?  

Ok, ones could say... it is automated...  BUT.. what is the really security behind automation ? The portal is on the Wild Web, right ?   

This happens today on datacenters, with real cross connects, usually thru MMR's (Meet me Rooms).    I don't want to have a Virtual Meet me Room, on Internet exchanges where i peer. 

This is my view.  I might be wrong, but i don't care, as i am square as a rock. :-)

I don't understand how can this new concept (or really old, considering ancient ATM peering and stuff), can be better, more secure, and cheaper for all.


More information about the NANOG mailing list