I'm curious about MAE-LA. It has the potential to be quiet big, but it
never really kicked off. We were considering linking there, but with only
13 other providers, we decided not too.

Does anyone know why MAE-LA never really kicked off?

Define "Really Kicked Off" for me, if you would...

According to

right now, MAE-LA is handling as much traffic as
MAE-WEST did in November of 1995, about 20 months
ago...see the following graph for historical data:

If MAE-LA keeps up that growth rate, in two years
it should be handling roughly 1Gb/sec through
it during the day. I think you'd agree that at
that point it would definitely have "kicked off"...

It's all a question of scale. MAE-LA is doing quite
nicely right now--I wouldn't recommend it as your
_only_ connection to the net, unless you're using
it to purchase transit connectivity out through one
of the carriers there. But as a place to pass traffic
to other players, it's quiet and reliable; once you
connect and set up your peering, it's never gone down
on us, we never have to think about it, unlike mae-west
it doesn't cause early morning heartburn because
someone tripped over an extension cord... :frowning:

Bill raised some excellent concerns, however, about
the overall wisdom of using the WorldCom supported
MAEs in general. I know that if I were starting
a company up at this point, I wouldn't recommend
trying to hit all the MAEs, I'd do private connections
to the major carriers, and screw trying to go
default-free or anything silly like that--it takes too
much time, too much effort, and your customers won't
really be able to tell the difference anyhow.

But then again, I'm just getting cynical at this hour. :frowning:

Short answer to your original question, mae-la is doing
perfectly well for what it is.


Matt Petach

speaking from home, not representing anyone that anyone
here might recognize...