T3 or not to T3

On the other hand, maybe you could be the customer that establishes the
distributed web server scenario I discussed earlier. If you have read
through http://www.ix.digital.com you will not that not only are they
running an exchange point but they are also running a web farm of sorts at
the same location. Chances are good that this web-farm-at-the-XP concept
will become the rule rather than the exception. Note that in Digital's
model it would be possible to connect to larger ISP's without requiring
traffic to flow through the XP itself.

At Digital's Palo Alto IX (URL as Michael said above), we view the
exchange point as a place where peering relationships are implemented.
Web farmers who are not ISPs (I'm not trying to start a debate on
what-is-an-ISP) can only peer with ISPs at the GIGAswitch if the web
farmer is able to find an ISP that wishes to provide connectivity in
that manner. I would hope that they wouldn't.

My personal feeling is that the provision of service should be
implemented on a separate port of the ISP's router - this provides
both the ISP and the web farmer with a measurable point of demarcation
independent of the IX. If the web farmer paid for an Ethernet or
whatever interface, they'd get an Ethernet or whatever interface, and
the bandwidth available to the customer on that port would not vary
with other traffic as it would if the web farmer were competing with
the ISP's peers for an interface attached to the GIGAswitch. Should
the web farmer purchase connectivity from other ISPs, their purchases
can be implemented as cross-connects to ISP routers (assuming the
address space can be advertised, the topology of the web farmer's
network can handle it, etc., etc., etc.).

ISPs might also wish to implement certain peering relationships with
cross-connects rather than consume bandwidth on their interface to the
GIGAswitch. To us, cross-connects are cross-connects, whether they
connect ISPs to web farmers or ISPs to ISPs.

Stephen
- -----
Stephen Stuart stuart@pa.dec.com
Network Systems Laboratory
Digital Equipment Corporation

At Digital's Palo Alto IX (URL as Michael said above), we view the
exchange point as a place where peering relationships are implemented.
Web farmers who are not ISPs (I'm not trying to start a debate on
what-is-an-ISP) can only peer with ISPs at the GIGAswitch if the web
farmer is able to find an ISP that wishes to provide connectivity in
that manner. I would hope that they wouldn't.

You sound overly negative here. I understand that you see a BIG difference
between a web server hooked up to a Gigaswitch port and a web server in an
ISP's rack getting to the Gigaswitch through the ISP's FDDI or 100baseTx
or whatever. But potential users of the XP location don't think that way.
If you want to see what your bosses are advertising, read the press
release at http://www.ix.digital.com/press.html

Should
the web farmer purchase connectivity from other ISPs, their purchases
can be implemented as cross-connects to ISP routers (assuming the
address space can be advertised, the topology of the web farmer's
network can handle it, etc., etc., etc.).

This is the key thing here. You are providing the physical facilities to
locate the servers as well as the wiring required to get any sort of
connection desired to the ISP's in the same building including zero-mile
T1's and DS3's. And you are promoting this service. This is what is new
and I expect that either Digital will do a few more of these in other
locations and/or other XP locations will also expand their facilities to
do this. Over the next 5 years XP's like this will be found in every major
North American city and the big content providers *WILL* have resolved
some technology that allows them to serve content from the topologically
closest server.

Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com