nanog mailing list archives
Re: IXP
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:35:19 -0500
Leo Bicknell wrote:
The value of an exchange switch is the shared vlan. I could see an argument that switching is no longer necessary; but I can see no rational argument to both go through all the hassles of per-peer setup and get all the drawbacks of a shared switch. Even exchanges that took the small step of IPv4 and IPv6 on separate VLAN's have diminished value to me, it makes no sense.
Cost. Shared port/ports versus port per peer, no physical cross connects to be made for each new peer. For a medium sized network, an IXP can provide cheap connectivity to many peers saving on transit costs.
I'll admit, my knowledge is limited given I exist in the non-existent Oklahoma infrastructure, but I count the days (years?) until I can afford to light a 10Gb ring down to Dallas and hopefully minimize the number of ports and size of hardware I need down there to interconnect my ring (and thus me) to everyone else. Hopefully with as few physical interconnects as possible, as my Junipers ports are expensive for my size. I'll never be transit free, but perhaps I can get peering through an IXP and save some transit costs.
Jack
Current thread:
- Re: IXP, (continued)
- Re: IXP Roland Dobbins (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Sean Donelan (Apr 19)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Paul Vixie (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Adrian Chadd (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Mike Leber (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Stephen Stuart (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Nick Hilliard (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Paul Wall (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Leo Bicknell (Apr 24)
- Re: IXP Arnold Nipper (Apr 23)
- Re: IXP Jack Bates (Apr 18)
- Re: IXP Bill Woodcock (Apr 17)