Coop Peering Fabric??

David Diaz at
Tue Aug 12 09:23:43 CDT 2008

Yes you are absolutely correct. Smaller players doing this for fun and
experimentation if not only a good idea, I believe it is critical for the
internet to grow and change. Ask UUNET how long it takes them to get
approval to implement something big....or even small.
Two pts thought. First, the cross connects at most of these locations are
still going to be a major monthly INVESTMENT unless the colo provider gets
involved. As was stated earlier $500 MRC has to be justified be costs
savings or other benefits.
Second, I have heard a lot of talk about SIX over the last year or so and
there is no guarantees that situation won't change. Telx and others can do a
fine job. I have not heard Any2 mentioned and their traffic levels have been
very good while keeping ports cost effective. Can that model scale?

Basically it's about the community deciding to support something. Perhaps
it's more about the players then the best model. This business is still run
significantly on trust and reputation of the people running the
infrastructure. No?


On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at>wrote:

> On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:58 AM, David Diaz wrote:
>  Love the Borg comment.
> Thanx.
>  Great thread.  Old topic.  It recycles every couple of years.  Not to
>> speak
>> for telx or Mike L but I do not think anyone was motivated to Borg
>> anything
>> but to support AIX.  10Gig ports are expensive.
>> I like the idea of more exchange points in that they usually provide more
>> recovery pts and redundancy, allow the sharing of skills and knowledge in
>> the local community, and provide flexibility for growth and change of the
>> internet. How many COs do we have? There has long been the argument of how
>> many IXs are needed, would it be 1 per state?  What happens with Voip,
>> IPtv
>> etc.
>> As for coops I think the argument is would the larger traffic players feel
>> comfortable connecting and making it a part of their networks?  Who are
>> the
>> anchors and 1st movers?  What are the guarantees that any investment in
>> infrastructure needed to get there will be recovered over X years... Will
>> the coop fold before that pt? Wll it have the resources to upgrade.
> Who said anything about larger traffic players?  What's wrong with a bunch
> of little guys getting together to trade traffic, for fun and profit?
> The smaller guys might have a better focus on performance in the local area
> (gamers anyone?), plus they tend to pay more per Mbps because they don't
> have scale, which makes moving a little traffic off more economical.
> All that said, Akamai is a pretty big network and they're present at a lot
> of these "small" IXen.  Ditto for local eyeball networks, e.g. Shaw @ SIX,
> Rogers @ TorIX, etc.
>  I so not think a poison pill is needed. Perhaps just a group or company
>> championing Coops and giving them booth-space at events, sponsoring
>> conference travels, providing rack space etc.  But if it's in the BEST
>> interest of the members to have a larger group come in and take over then
>> what is the harm? What is the alternative, have members pay membership
>> fees?
>> Corp Sponsorship?
>> I agree on much of this. But as with most things it comes down to money.
>> Do
>> members have a financial incentive to join and what is the financial model
>> to keep the Coop moving forward as a success.
> Several small IXes have grown quite a bit with no or very small membership
> fees.  Look at the ones I mentioned.  I think SIX is the largest, but
> they're all not that tiny.
> --
> patrick

More information about the NANOG mailing list