David Diaz techlist at
Thu Nov 14 15:22:09 UTC 2002

Well thanks for the agreement Ed.

Philosophically, I agree with Paul.  I think 40 exchange points would 
be a benefit.  At this time though, there is no model that would 
support it.

1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap.  Meaning distance peering 
becomes more attractive.  L3 also has an MPLS product so you pay by 
the meg.  I am surprised a great many peers are using this.  But 
apparently CFOs love it

2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km. 
VoIP might be the app.  Seems to be gaining a great deal of traction. 
Since it's obvious traffic levels would sky rockets, and latency is a 
large concern, and there is a need to connect to the local voice TDM 
infrastructure, local exchanging is preferred.  However, many VoIP 
companies claim latency right now is acceptable and they are 
receiving no major complaints.  So we are left to guess at other 
killer apps, video conferencing, movie industry sending movies online 
directly to consumers etc.

3) In order to get to the next level of peering exchanges... from 6 
major locations to 12.... we are going to need the key peers in those 
locations.  Many dont want to manage that growing complexity for 
diminishing returns, as well as the increased cost in equipment. 
Perhaps it's up to the key exchange companies to tie fabrics together 
allowing new (tier2 locations) to gain visibility to peers at other 
larger locations.  This would allow peers at the larger locations to 
engage in peering discussions, or turn ups, and when traffic levels 
are justified a deployment to the second location begins.  Problem 
with new locations are 'chicken and the egg.'  Critical mass must be 
achieved before there is a large value proposition for peers.

And to everyone that emailed me with their "we also are an exchange 
email."  Yes, I readily admit there are other companies doing peering 
besides the ones I mentioned.  I just did a quick post so I did not 
list every single exchange company.  So you have my apologies, and I 
wont even hold it against you all that you were sales people....


At 9:52 +0000 11/14/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>PV> Date: 14 Nov 2002 05:14:30 +0000
>PV> From: Paul Vixie
>[ re number of US exchange points ]
>DD> Right now seems domestically 6 may be all we need.
>PV> I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the "NFL cities") right
>PV> now, and 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any
>PV> "metro" with population greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area
>PV> will need a neutral exchange point (even if it's 1500 sqft in
>PV> the bottom of a bank building.)
>Are we discussing:
>1) locations primarily for peering between large carriers, or
>2) carrier hotels including virtually all providers, where cheap
>    faste/gige peering runs are easily justified?
>If #1, I agree with David.  In the case of the latter, I think I
>see what Paul is saying.  IMESHO, local/longhaul price imbalance
>and the growth of distributed hosting {would|will} help fuel the
>smaller exchanges.
>Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
>Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
>Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
>Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
>Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
>From: A Trap <blacklist at>
>To: blacklist at
>Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
>These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
>Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at>, or you are likely to
>be blocked.


David Diaz
dave at [Email]
pagedave at [Pager]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons

More information about the NANOG mailing list