This is an especially strange comment, as almost everyone who peers,
interconnects in multiple places - thus, exceeding the capacity of a
single interface.

I mean peering speed between a single pair of ISPs at a single
exchange (or peering) point exceeds that of a single interface.

And, if you need many, say 10, interfaces, l1 have all the
flexibilities Vadim want.

Layer 1 peering (or pooling, as it's more usually known) is great for
interconnecting fiber networks, fast provisioning, and all that.

You may say that we are not ready for full fiber networking, yet.

But, we, at least Randy, are talking about "the right path". OK?

I fail to see the connection between Layer 1 interconnection and an IP
exchange point of any kind. This seems apples and oranges.

Except that there are private peering at exchange points.

Layer 2
exchange points are the only efficient way to go for IP traffic. History
and the "invisible hand" of the market have endorsed this path.

It is merely that an l3 exchange point over an l2 shared medium
is a bad idea.

              Masataka Ohta

It is merely that an l3 exchange point over an l2 shared medium
is a bad idea.

agreed. the problem is that it's the best idea we've come up with so far
for folk who are willing to have a lot of small peers.

one of the problems folk like we have is not wanting to manage (i.e.
monitor, tune, ...) the bandwidth to 75 small peers at a meeting place.
we just want to plug one wire in (well, two for redundancy) and let the
packets fly.

of course, for the 10+ big-bandwidth peers, multiple point-to-point
interfaces is the current practice. and it is here that we have hope that
aggregated layer one may pay off. yet to be seen, of course.