Vancouver IXP - VanTX - BCNet
niels=nanog at bakker.net
Fri Aug 23 10:59:12 UTC 2013
* woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Wed 21 Aug 2013, 21:04 CEST]:
>On Aug 21, 2013, at 10:27 AM, "William F. Maton Sotomayor"
><wmaton at ottix.net> wrote:
>>My anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already
>>been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming
>>self-sustaining in the future? It's a rhetorical question
>>applicable to any starting IXP.
>Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well
>enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their
>average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also
>essential that they have some basic familiarity with the different
>ways IXPs can fail, or fail to thrive, so that they can avoid
>mistakes others have made in the past. Over-spending, particularly
>on switches, is a huge killer of IXPs. Under-provisioning of
>circuits to the IXP is another big mistake. Failure to encourage
>local content and hosting is another.
Can you cite a few examples of an IXP going under because of
overspending on switch hardware? You call this a "huge killer"
so there must be dozens you can choose from.
"It's amazing what people will do to get their name on the internet,
which is odd, because all you really need is a Blogspot account."
-- roy edroso, alicublog.blogspot.com
More information about the NANOG