North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: different thinking on exchanging traffic
Well, the problem is of course that local exchanges concentrate power and make backbone packet transport into a commoditiy with machines (routers) making buying decisions in realtime. Dirk On Tue, May 26, 1998 at 03:38:24PM -0400, Damian O'Gorman wrote: > > Of course, not every local ISP participates. The state subsidized > > education network doesn't connect, nor do some the dialup ISPs. But > > it gets a reasonable level of support from several of the larger > > area providers. > > > > The same type of project was attemted in Toronto. CANIX was essentially set > upto cross connect traffic rather than having to traverse the entire US > network to get > to the other side of Toronto. The problem was, it became an exclusive > bilateral peering > arrangemt with 6 players. That was 1 1/2 years ago. Currently only 2 are > peered. What in fact was the point. UUnet and Sprint were the big players up > here and nobody appears to want to cooperate. > > > But exchange points are one of those weird creatures. If I'm paying > > a big expensive backbone, why would I get anything from a local exchange > > point? And of course, the ever popular "What's the catch?" Since > > local exchange points are generally run on a non-profit basis, that > > means there isn't a large marketing organization, or a huge gaggle of > > salespeople trying to sell it. If you like, we can call it a "managed > > connection" and charge you $1,000/month. But that seems steep for > > essentially a port on a catalyst switch. > > > > > > Damian O'Gorman >
|