Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet

Clayton Zekelman clayton at MNSi.Net
Wed Aug 21 14:38:37 UTC 2013

At 10:21 AM 21/08/2013, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote

>The Peer1 setups remind me very much of what Group Telecom (defunct 
>Canadian backbone provider) did in the very late 90's and the very 
>early part of the last decade.  They had them in nearly every city 
>they had their facilities, but the GT IXPs never caught on ($$$ to 
>get inside the facility and they played hard ball against incumbant 
>access effectively making them closed unless direct GT customers.)

Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest 
could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as 
they had pricing and policies that were similar to member driven 
exchange points.

I have a facility in Windsor, Ontario that is well connected, has all 
the physical infrastructure necessary, the ability to provide 
relatively low cost local fibre loops, has an open policy towards 
other carriers providing transport loops, but alas, it wouldn't be 
perceived as "neutral".

I would suggest that member driven exchanges typically produce the 
end product that people are interested in.  Honestly, if TorIX wasn't 
member driven, but had the same policies as it does now, I'd still 
want to connect.

Community of interest of course is the other magical ingredient that 
is necessary.  Not sure how many ISPs would want to peer in Windsor...


Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409        

More information about the NANOG mailing list