In some markets, that's the only viable place to go. Chicago, for instance. 
Equinix at 350 E. Cermak has a commanding lead over anywhere else for 
connectivity. With AMS-IX, Megaport and United-IX here now, we'll likely see 
some of that shift around a bit, but it'll take time. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




----- Original Message -----

From: "Eric Kuhnke" <[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 11:02:51 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Seen this Brocade before? 


Smart people don't start leases in Equinix facilities unless they have 
absolutely, positively no other option. 



On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Mike Hammett < [email protected] > wrote: 




In an Equinix facility, 1G ports are very expensive... at $350/month per cross 
connect. :-) 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 






From: "Josh Reynolds" < [email protected] > 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:10:58 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Seen this Brocade before? 





Once upon a time, that was probably said about 10G links. Before then, about 1G 
links. Those 1G ports are expensive you know. 


On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Paul Stewart < [email protected] > wrote: 

<blockquote>

Had a demo of that platform a month or so ago .. wasn’t public obviously - 
pretty impressive but a lot jammed into a “small package” … tough sell for 
folks who need that kind of density, personal opinion is to keep things more 
“spread out” on 100G links reducing areas of risk, but I digress as that’s more 
design/resiliency related :) 





<blockquote>

On Jun 16, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Mike Hammett < [email protected] > wrote: 


Don't worry, no one has. First public pictures. 

https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp/posts/910364895755630 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




</blockquote>



</blockquote>


Reply via email to