On Jul 10, 2014, at 8:46 PM, Jima <na...@jima.us> wrote: > On 2014-07-10 19:40, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> From another list, I think this puts it nicely (for those of you who >> don't know Brett, he's been running a small ISP for years >> http://www.lariat.net/) > > While trying to substantiate Mr. Glass' grievance with Netflix regarding > their lack of availability to peer, I happened upon this tidbit from two > months ago: > > http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/re-netflix-inks-deal-with-verizon-wont-talk-to-small-isps/ > > As for Mr. Woodcock's point regarding a lack of http://lariat.net/peering > existing, https://www.netflix.com/openconnect/locations doesn't seem to do > what I'd expect, either, although I did finally find the link to > http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=2906 . To Mr. Glass' point, I'm not > seeing any way the listed PoPs could feasibly be less than 900 wire-miles > from Laramie -- to be fair, cutting across "open land" is a bad joke at best. > > Life is rough in these "fly-over" states (in which I would include my current > state of residence); the closest IXes of which I'm aware are in Denver and > SLC (with only ~19 and 9 peers, respectively). Either of those would be a > hard sell for Netflix, no doubt about it. > > I guess I'm just glad that my home ISP can justify anteing up for a pipe to > SIX, resources for hosting OpenConnect nodes, and, for that matter, an ASN. > Indeed, not everyone can. > > Jima
I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a larger remote exchange. For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles, SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer. Owen
