North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The questions stand
> I do so wish we could get over the "tier" fixation. > > If I start the Tampa Bay Internet Exchange, let's say, and I haul in > OC-3 links from the 5 top backbones, and DS-3's to the 4 NAP's, I can > then (very likely) a) resell bandwidth to local ISP's for quite a bit less > than the backbones could sell them a local drop, which would b) be > quintuply redundant in cast of feed failure, and c) unload all the > cross provider traffic from the NAP's, and indeed, the backbone itself. I'm not disagreeing with anything here but, the "tier" thing is a real concern especially for the marketing weasels at the smaller companies. The network construction is quite sound. > > This worked perfectly well with Usenet topology, until the commercial > wonks started screwing it up. > > In fact, I could operate the exchange as a co-op, _owned_ by all the > local providers. This is the best I've heard yet. A non-profit co-op run by any interested local providers would be just a fantastic idea. The reason I brought up the whole tier issue is that if this becomes a commercial entity then it looses its effectiveness. > > Except for the back bone operators, who's best interests is such a > scheme _not_ it? > > (And please note here: just because I _could_ oversubscribe the uplinks > doesn't meant I _have_ to.) Right..see above. Brian
|