More Questions of Exchange Points
bmanning at karoshi.com
bmanning at karoshi.com
Sun Apr 7 01:36:39 UTC 2002
> >> The difference between a peering exchange and a transit exchange is a much
> >> more easily technically-defined difference: a peering exchange is one
> >> across which, by and large, the participants just exchange peering routes.
> >
> > Do you mean the participants just exchange BGP routing information? So the
> > traceroute data will only discover the peering point they exchange traffic?
>
> The assumtion is that all ISPs exchange routes via BGP. What's at issue
well, there are a fair number of exchanges built on a model
developed by B.Greene, when BGP capability was not always there
(often not a technology problem... :) They are still a number of
them in existence. The exchange routes using an IGP and fate
share over the exchange. The BGP'ness occurs at each of their
upstreams.
> is the degree of redundancy in the routes which they're exchanging. If
> they're purchasing transit at or through a facility, it's to provide
> reachability to things that they couldn't otherwise reach, either normally
> or under conditions of failed peering. That makes the service much more
> critical than peering, which is, by definition, an economic optimization
> over transit. Thus, people are willing to spend much more money on a
> facility through which they're putting transit, and they're willing to
> tolerate a divided marketplace, as long as each facility is able to
> maintain at least three sellers.
I really need to read your paper. There appear to be a
number of presumptions that are "cultural", for want of
a better term, which bias your conclusions.
> > ISPs exchange their traffic at IXs or private peering points, so which
> > is more important to the ISPs (in term of traffic volume or other
> > measures)? Maybe I should also mention co-locators, then what's the
> > difference between co-locator and the "carrier hotel"? Are they like
> > "physical layer exchange points" (if there is such a concept)?
>
> These aren't necessarily useful distinctions you're making. They're
> distinctions of marketing positioning. What matters economically and
> technically is how people use the facilities, not what they're called.
Amen.
>
> -Bill
>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list