Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?

Wed Aug 7 23:36:27 UTC 2002

Hi all -

I've been working with a number of ISPs on a research paper that builds on 
the previous peering research papers (Internet Service Providers and 
Peering, A Business Case for Peering, The Art of Peering, Interconnection 
Strategies for ISPs, etc.) that applies the Peering Modelling tools in a 
comparison of ATM and Ethernet-based Internet Exchanges. Both of these IXes 
are compared against each other and against the cost of buying transit. The 
paper applies recent price quotes for transport and transit, costs for ATM 
and Ethernet-based IX participation, to answer the question:

            Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?

I'd like to speak with additional ISP Peering Coordinators and Network 
Architects  (preferable ones that have experience with peering across both 
ATM and Ethenet-based IXes) to walk through this paper and help me check 
that I have the technical and business details right. I would need about 20 
minutes or so on the phone to walk you through the paper, the financial 
models, the cost points, and get feedback on the conclusions...preferably 
sometime in the next couple weeks.

If you are a Peering Coordinator I think you will find at least a couple of 
findings in this research *very* interesting. In any case, if you can help, 
please send me an e-mail at wbn at equinix.com and let me know when we could 
chat.

Thanks -

Bill

PS - As with any these Peering White Papers, this white paper will be 
freely available once enough folks have walked through it and verify that 
we have things right.

------------------------------------------ Abstract 
---------------------------------------------------
During the NSFNET transition from the Authorized Use Policy Internet to the 
Commercial Internet, several Network Access Points (NAPs) were created to 
facilitate the traffic exchange between the Internet Service Providers, two 
of which were ATM-based. Internet Service Providers were initially required 
to connect to three of the four NAPs in order to receive NSF funds 
(indirectly through their NSF-sponsored customers) during this transition 
period.

During the years that followed, this requirement was dropped and the costs 
models of Internet Operation have changed dramatically. Technologies such 
as Wave Division Multiplexing and Long Haul Fiber Improvements have led to 
radical a decrease in the cost of transport and a corresponding drop in the 
price of transit. At the same, the cost of peering at ATM-based exchange 
points has not substantially dropped in cost, leading to the question in 
the Peering Coordinator Community:

  "Do ATM-based Internet Exchange Points make sense anymore?"

In this paper we apply the peering financial models to this question, using 
current market prices to compare the price of transit against the costs of 
peering at ATM-based NAPs and Ethernet-based Internet Exchange Points. We 
build upon the previous research on Peering by introducing the notion of an 
Effective Peering Range (EPR) to describe the "useful life" of an Internet 
Exchange. We also highlight a potentially costly EPR Gap, an interim range 
between Peering Capacity points where peering is more expensive than transit.

The financial models presented that produced the graphs are included in the 
Appendix so that ISPs can apply these cost models to their specific situation.