I was speaking specifically of the cases where they are already grouped at a central location such as the 9 in Salt Lake City or the 19 in Denver mentioned in the example to which I responded.
I’m pretty sure that in the case where they are already grouped into a less populous exchange point, there is no issue of geography, especially, e.g. SLC or DEN as mentioned. Owen On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:46 AM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > Owen, > > That's because you're not thinking about the geography involved. Where > possible the smaller operators often do form groups and partnerships, but > creating networks that serve more than a 3-4 operators often means covering > more distance than if the operators simply go directly to the tier 1 ISP > individually. There have been many attempts at creating networks that > provide that kind of service but the economics are often bad. > > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum > (678) 507-5000 > -------------------------------- > http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > 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 > >
