From: Alexander Koch [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
As another matter I do not believe in public peering at all
when you have flows to a single peer that are ore than half
of a full GE. Been there, was not at all nice. I guess more
and more operators will have less and less public IX ports,
and the open peering coalition will start wondering at some
point... The AMSIX has a lot of 10G peers. While they just
take two ports, and the AMSIX supposedly also being redundant
(and cheap <g>) it is just a time- bomb. How many times did
either LINX or AMSIX had issues (actually very rare!) and we
happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective
other IX... Say what you want, but public peering (yes/no)
has a lot to do with your amount of traffic, and your peers.
It depends. Thinking of reliability:
FICIX over here in Finland requires all full members to
join _two_ switches in physically separate locations from separate
points in your own network, using redundant fiber paths.
Result: a very reliable IX. In Sweden
Netnod has IX facilities in five cities around the country.
AFAIK most of the traffic exchange is done over public peerings
in Finland and Sweden - very reliably.