peering, derivatives, and big brother

Thu Dec 16 04:02:46 UTC 2010

> From: Jeff Wheeler 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:24 PM
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother
> 
> Invisible Hand Networks was really meant to be a spot market.  The
> same problem exists with bandwidth spot markets that always has
> existed, the cost of ports to maintain sufficient capacity to the
> exchange, and the lack of critical mass, meaning that the spot
> bandwidth is either pretty expensive, or there is not enough capacity
> for any serious application.  Certainly, no spot bandwidth market
> currently in existence can compete with even mid-sized CDNs; and I do
> not believe that will ever change.

The only way I could imagine it working is something like Equinix does
with their Equinix Direct product

http://www.equinix.com/data-center-services/network-connectivity/ip-conn
ectivity/

What I really miss is the old Telseon model.  If I had a Telseon
connection, I could configure a "logical wire" to any other Telseon
customer (basically provision a vlan through their fabric between us)
with a web interface.  I could call the other end, we agree to create
the path, I configure it on the web page, they accept it, the next day
there is a path between us.  It was a beautiful system.  If I wanted to
adjust my bandwidth cap on any of the "logical wires", I that was done
with a web interface, too.  I could raise it for a week and drop it back
down and pay only for what I used.  It was billed daily at the
configured bandwidth cap.  Problem was that many of the colo providers
hated it as it allowed people basically unencumbered access to any other
Telseon customer within 24 hours.  Some absolutely refused to allow
Telseon into their data centers, others insisted on placing their sales
force in the path destroying the value of the product.  It was
wonderful, I miss it.