Talk:List of Internet exchange points by size

message: Hey, what about updates?  The data is from 2006-09-29, but should we update it?  I think that probably, yes, we should.  Would a monthly survey be appropriate?  Or could we just update individual sources?  —Fudoreaper 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone wants to do a monthly update: go for it! Might as well make it automatic, otherwise that will be lots of work. Agentbla (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates?

message: Hello, please note the strange traffic (yearly stats) at DE-CIX. Recently they have been modified to seem to have in incredibly high growth rate. DE-CIX doubling rate in terms of triffic was 14-month. Now stats tell its 6 months. They are stupid over there! -- Alvo 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heared DE-CIX got many new ISPs those days.  So I believe it's true traffic. -- Triedexact 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say that they're using fake statistics, but I don't know whether their graphs are reliable or not. The 714 gbit/s peak came from a moment on which the exchange normally does 250 gbit/s as seen on this screencap from the graph itself on that day. Dubious to say at least. AMS-IX has many problems with their monitoring as well, I saw peaks of more than a terabit per second but they were edited out. Dodehoekspiegel (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: There is no reason to fake traffic statistics. Comparing throughput is not comparing penis lengths! That the peak traffic in frankfurt is that extraordinary high should definitely be mentioned here. Moreover, the VERY high peaks at DE-CIX are not considered to be good at all but might be the result of routing/congestion problems. --Casp11 (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It is totally viable.  Swiss Internet Exchange has grown 5x in the past year.  Stuinzuri (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DE-CIX fakes traffic statistics 

message: Should PANAP be added to this list? They claim 110 members, but give no indication of throughput. -- The Anome 13:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they don't report throughput how do you want to add them? Comparing IXPs by size (ie. throughput) ist the purpose of this list. Agentbla (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO member count is an equally if not more reasonable definition for "size" than throughput. I guess we could have a seperate page for listing exchange points by membership but IMO given that we have user driven sorting one page should reasonablly be able to cover both. Plugwash (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PANAP 

message: LINX traffic graph includes PI traffic. Be careful when you edit this article. -- Triedexact 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's PI traffic? It's hard to find via Search Engine... --80.136.110.31 19:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Private Internal" maybe? Agentbla (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  I believe "Private Interconnect", meaning a connection between two ISPs that is handled seperately than the main traffic exchange. Fudoreaper 05:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LINX 

message: Hello everybody,
I found this page via Internet Exchange Point, searching for DE-CIX (which is #3 on the list). It has 189 Members from a few months ago - now I find 206 ASN versus 213 ISPs listed on their website. The lists are not necessarily synchronized. So how do I find the number of "Members"? And then: Should I update it in the list (perhaps with date)? I think it's hard work to compile a new list every time there's a change - but then again there's no point in comparing numbers of different date. Perhaps it's good to tell the date of the data in the columns header, and make an additional one from time to time. Or even have one with a fixed date, and one for the "current" state, which can be changed randomly by passers-by. Then at some time the current one can be fixed, checked and moved, while the first one is deleted, and a copy of the new fixed column becomes the current column.
just my 0,02 Euro --80.136.110.31 19:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, do not update just DECIX. All or nothing. Your proposal sounds more complicated than the way it is now (and not practical either). Agentbla (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Members" 

message: This IXP does not appear on the list. How should I add it? The statistics are available in . But 
I don´t how to determine the traffic of 21 July 2007.
Marcio.gregory (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PTT Metro - São Paulo, Brazil 

message: In the introduction passage, it is stated that this list generally limits itself to IXPs over 1Gbps, but last 2 entries do not conform to that. I believe these were added by users from respective countries (Argentina and Israel). Should they be deleted (last 2 entries)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzenanz (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most likely.  The opening paragraph you mentioned was i think an expression of the original author's intent.  The intent was also to update the list all together, or nothing.  That is also not happening, as you can see. In a perfect world, this information would always be up-to-date. But, since the data changes nearly daily, it's hard to achieve that. Personally, i think that we should limit the wikipedia list of exchange points by size to some definition of largeness, and 1Gbps seems a reasonable cutoff, to me.  Therefore, i think the last two entries should be deleted. At the same time, we should probably update all entries in the list, as currently it's in a pretty inconsistent state.  Big job, though. ;) —fudoreaper (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed two entries below 1 Gbps. —fudoreaper (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 1Gbps? 

message: I just completed updating the top 25 entries.  Problems arose with SFNIX, PARIX and PipeIX, they did not have good public data, meaning that their entries are out of date. I would argue that not having public data means that we cannot include them on this list. If we don't have data, how can we rank them?  Any objections to removing them from the list? —fudoreaper (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that out of date data are better than remove it from list, as it is only small possibility, that current data can be smaller. --78.108.106.253 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including exchanges without public data 

message: We need some info about Chinese IXPs, and stats would be much better.
Shenzen IXP over 5 Tbit/s
Total international bandwidth of China: 800+ Gbit/s
PAStheLoD (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Chinese IXPs need to publish there numbers then.  Your links are not really from or about any particular IXP.  No data, then no listing. Stuinzuri (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Also be extremely careful with the numbers you're playing with - they are core routing capacity numbers according to one a marketing, not actual traffic numbers, if they're going for 5Tb/sec capacity they're expecting traffic way way lower. The 800Gbit/sec number might not be far off. That said where's the MRTGs for this exchange? --Streaky (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree.  Stuinzuri (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about China? 

message: Can we add FranceIX? See Traffic statistics and members list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.171.32.30 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know when, but it's been added now. Thanks for the suggestion!  —fudoreaper (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding FranceIX 

message: Current page says 1gbit, but the graphs suggest more? http://stats.jinx.net.za/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.102.92 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JINX numbers 

message: I observed that some IXP publish data as Tbps (e.g., AMS-IX) and that conversion in this article is done by multiplying with 1024, instead of 1000. Is that correct? If I understood correctly, tera- is 1000 times larger that giga-, while tebi- is 1024 times larger than gibi-. Moreover, to my knowledge, network engineers always used 1000-based prefixes. Cristiklein (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion from Tbps to Gbps 

message: Some of the highest fiber internet lines are one gigabit now. Including one gigabit (or rather given rounding, at minimum .5 gigabits) internet seems a bit low. This makes the list a bit long as well. Maybe restrict to 100 Gbps?
Elryacko (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 Gbps seems a bit low 

message: I stumbled over this article by accident and found some strange numbers. The first 2 entries, Amsterdam and Frankfurt were listed with the maximum numbers of 2972Gbps (AMS) and 2828Gbps (FRA), while the sources for those numbers cleary state an all-time maximum of 2969Gbps (AMS) and 3431Gbps (FRA). I corrected them and hope, that's ok. I also corrected the listing in terms of place, because the sources state, that Frankfurt is slightly bigger than Amsterdam.
What I did not correct are the average numbers. These also do not align with the provided sources.
I would pledge for a change for the average numbers taking the past year by the date of the value update. That would mean, that for a reliable comparison, they all have to be updated at once. As the different IX do apperently not offer an average for the last full calendar year, they could all be udpated beginning of January for the last year. Just an idea.
Edit: I just saw, that the number for Amsterdam was the peak output and was right, so I did not change that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Excuit (talk • contribs) 10:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet exchange points tend to grow, so shortly after an update, the numbers could already be higher. The colon "Values updated" indicates when the last update (of all numbers) was. – Editør (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes they do, I would suggest we use the monthly graph - as I just updated AMS and LINX to use their monthly graphs. I know there are yearly, but those figures don't really make much sense in terms of maximum or avergae values, due to outliers and so on. Probably need a standard, but at least this is roughly good enough Thelen Shar (talk) 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The right numbers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Internet exchange points by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080416023436/http://www.top-ix.com:80/consorziati to http://www.top-ix.com/consorziati
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080416023619/http://www.top-ix.com:80/traffic-summary to http://www.top-ix.com/traffic-summary
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926133502/http://www.parix.net/parix-members.html to http://www.parix.net/parix-members.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The title "List of Internet exchange points by size" implies that this is an article that simply re-lists data from "List of Internet exchange points" in a different order.
However, I see that the contents of the two articles have a different scope and each includes information not found in the other one -- see Talk:List of Internet exchange points#merge.
I suggest renaming this "List of Internet exchange points by size" article to a name that more clearly indicates its contents and scope, leaving a redirect behind pointing to the new name.
Would "List of largest Internet exchange points in the world" be appropriate, analogous to List of largest buildings in the world ?
--DavidCary (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Internet exchange points by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060926133614/http://www.parix.net/cgi-bin/mrtg-rrd.cgi/giga.parix.net_total.html to http://www.parix.net/cgi-bin/mrtg-rrd.cgi/giga.parix.net_total.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of Internet exchange points by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060926133624/http://www.tix.ch/tix_members.html to http://www.tix.ch/tix_members.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Very surprised to see many IXPs (among the large ones) with many flags in countries where they do not have any device/hardware/POP... Is it the customer locations list or is the IXP country / POPs / locations ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.190.70.22 (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IXPs in many countries ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Internet exchange points by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220021102/http://www.bcix.de/bcix/mitglieder/ to http://www.bcix.de/bcix/mitglieder/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Internet exchange points by size. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423075337/https://www.inex.ie/about/memberlist to https://www.inex.ie/about/memberlist
*Added  tag to https://www.peeringdb.com/private/facility_view.php?id=1927
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718151705/http://www.gr-ix.gr/services/statistics/total/ to http://www.gr-ix.gr/services/statistics/total/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are several numbers I've fixed in this table because they were given as terabits when the table says its unit is gigabits. For example, the LINX exchange point was showing "5" when it really should show "5,000". The source confirms 5 terabits/sec of throughput, which is 5,000 gigabits/sec.
Are there other similar problems that I've missed? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Units 

message: Hello, I haven‘t worked on this article yet, so correct me if I‘m wrong, but: it seems to me that the ranking is currently not based on equal terms. Looking at the current #1, IX.br, the throughput (2,524) is the sum of all different locations‘ throughput (more than 30 if I count correctly). On the other hand, the current #2, DE-CIX, has a listed througput of 9,168, but this is the number for only one of DE-CIX‘s locations (Frankfurt). If I added DE-CIX‘s other locations like you did in the case of IX.br, the ranking would be different. Can anybody explain the logic behind this to me, please? 
If I were to suggest an improvement, it would be to look at the actual numbers at any given location and rank the exchanges accordingly. 
Any thoughts on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roeckelsemm (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I stumpled upon the same thing, because I was looking at the DE-CIX article and I read there the first time, that Frankfurt would not be the biggest exchange in the world anymore and that IX.br would be bigger. But after I looked into it, this is not really the case. Because IX.br's numbers is a sum of all their locations. But their biggest location (Sao Paolo) is on average not as big as DE-CIX Frankfurt. IMO it does not make sense, to sum different locations (which are different exchange points) at all, because DE-CIX also operates exchange nodes in New York, Madrid, Paris etc. Nobody would expect from a list of biggest internet exchanges, that you sum all those locations up and then claim, that this is the largest internet exchange point. The list in the current form does (at least for IX.br not give the numbers for an internet exchange point, but for all exchange points owned by that company, which is something totally different). If you look for example at this URL (https://www.pch.net/ixp/dir#!mt-sort=avg%2Cdesc!mt-pivot=avg) which is cited as source in the DE-CIX article for that claim) this citation doesn't even support the claim. Because this list looks at the individual exchange points themselves (and not the sum of all the points owned by some company). And there DE-CIX Frankfurt is still the largest exchange point in the world. So I would say, that the list needs a good amount of reworking, to ensure, that it doesnt compare apples to oranges and really look at the size of individual exchange points for all entries. --Deconstruct (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree that the list needs to be reworked, but I'm not sure exactly the best way to do that. - Dyork (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different parameters result in incorrect ranking, improvement suggested 

message: Epix has 3 IX's in Katowice (biggest), Warsaw and Poznań. Totally has over 1,75 Tbps in daily peak (all ix's together) and aven 1Tbps 
in Katowice IX only.
There is no any information about EPIX, but there are many smaller Ix's.
Epix is provided by non-profit organisation E-Poludnie society.
https://www.epix.net.pl/narzedzia/statystyki-epix/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwrodarczyk (talk • contribs) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of one of the biggest polish IX - epix. 

message: This list is not eor more information on the largest IXPs
eor doesn't make sense. 213.34.183.146 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should this be?