Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet
josmon at rigozsaurus.com
Wed Aug 21 16:47:01 UTC 2013
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> >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.
> Verrrry interesting that you raise that.
> IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit.
> (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my
> recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing
> for-profit over nont-for-profit.
NMIX was a group of NM ISPs on a shared router at (last of?) the local
feeders into what was once WestNet in the NSF days. It had a local NNTP
server and (I believe) a couple of other services. It was useful back
in the days when you could plumb some T1s to an AGS+ and make people
Mr. Brown's attempt at an exchange (IXNM) lasted about 8 years, and can
probably be counted as an example of failure for such a model. The
political side overwhelmed any technical advantage in Albuquerque.
While it never became an importan IX, from the outside it looked like it
was a successful bandwidth co-op with several local ISPs buying from it
and benefiting from the local connectivity.
Perhaps others can make a go at it?
----------- IXNM Opening e-mail ---------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:45:27 -0700
From: "John M. Brown" <john at chagres.net>
To: 'John Osmon' <josmon at rigozsaurus.com>
Subject: IXNM goes live Friday 30-Jan-03
----------- IXNM Ending e-mail ---------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:51:33 +0000
From: John Brown <john at citylinkfiber.com>
To: "1st-Mile-NM" <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>
Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IXNM End of an Era, death due to stupid politics.
More information about the NANOG