On 15 Jun 2016, at 19:23, Sander Steffann wrote:
So here we are now... Where do we want to go?
I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more
services but also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple,
scalable and cheap solutions!
I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some
nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a
separate switch :)
(I spoke on this topic in the session - I regret insufficiently
coherently, but I’ll try again)
Most of the major IXs in the European market operate in multiple
datacentres. Why? Because it decreases the monopoly conferred upon one
particular datacentre in a market which becomes the ‘go to’
location.
Dan Golding disagreed with me but I can certainly speak for LONAP where
I feel our mission of “promoting efficient interconnection in the
UK” is hugely enhanced by our ability to provide services in any of
our current seven datacentres, across four different operators. London
would not be the great city of interconnection it is without the east
London cluster of DCs from different operators.
We have had a fair few single site IXs in London - e.g. the now defunct
RBEIX, Sovex, Meriex. I don’t think it is a viable model for an IXP in
a well-developed market.
Then there is another concern. What’s the plan for SIX if the Westin
Building colo is sold to someone less benevolent and co-operative? I am
really pleased their current arrangement seems to work well for SIX, its
members and datacentre partners. I think our own members would be less
comfortable with that level of risk.
Will
