Summary

  • DE-CIX lists ip-it consult (AS61438), Packet Clearing House (AS42) and RcodeZero Anycast DNS (AS1921) as the first three networks ready to connect to ALPSiX; AAIX’s records already list all three.
  • That overlap is a baseline, not a verdict. The public case for a roughly €5.7 million investment depends on additional routes, real traffic, service use and tested resilience—not the number of exchange names on a map.

A new exchange can be commissioned before its commercial proposition has been proved. Carinthia’s official announcement on 18 September called ALPSiX operational; DE-CIX’s launch release says networks will be able to exchange traffic locally in Klagenfurt and Villach from the end of 2026, while orders are being taken now. Those statements describe different milestones. A press event is not a traffic graph, and an order window is not a connected participant.

That timing distinction matters because the first names DE-CIX puts forward are not new to the local interconnection market. Its Klagenfurt–Villach page says ip-it consult GmbH (AS61438), Packet Clearing House (AS42) and RcodeZero Anycast DNS (AS1921) are the first companies “ready to be connected” to ALPSiX. AAIX’s member register lists the same networks, with entries dating to 2019 for ip-it and PCH AS42 and to 2024 for RcodeZero. The PeeringDB record also lists their peering at AAIX. Its profile was last updated in September 2025, so it is evidence of a published roster—not current traffic, a new ALPSiX order or a promise to multihome.

The overlap does not make ALPSiX redundant. Networks can connect to more than one exchange, and a second platform could provide another physical route, access to different participants, or a useful way to reach DE-CIX services. But each benefit needs a mechanism. The current public record does not show that any of the three has ordered ALPSiX, will keep its AAIX connection, or will send traffic over both. Nor does an exchange’s existence by itself establish that a route avoids a shared fibre, power, building or upstream failure.

AAIX is therefore the necessary comparison point. Its PeeringDB profile describes a volunteer-run, regional non-profit exchange with 10GE switches in two Klagenfurt locations, no commercial terms and no 24/7 NOC. Those are self-reported details last updated on 10 September 2025, not an audited present-day service level or a current price quote. Still, they describe an incumbent that ALPSiX’s business case must improve on, complement or deliberately serve differently.

A connection that is cheaper but has no incident support may be a different product from a professionally operated platform; a new label alone does not establish that the difference is worth public money.

The state says it is investing around €5.7 million; its 18 September release distributed via APA-OTS rounds that figure to €6 million. DE-CIX describes the new sites as edge containers and says the exchange will join a global ecosystem of more than 60 locations. Its Klagenfurt–Villach page lists GlobePEER, Microsoft Azure Peering Remote, VirtualPNI, DirectCLOUD Remote and blackholing. These are potential products, not demonstrated sales or automatic benefits. DE-CIX says customers first need platform access before they can order services; no public ALPSiX tariff, signed participant count, traffic total, utilization, revenue or itemized operating cost was found in the reviewed sources.

The distinction also corrects the baseline implied by some older project language. A BIK page dated January 2025 called ALPSiX the “first Internet Exchange Point in Carinthia” and projected local exchange from spring 2026. AAIX’s public records place members in Klagenfurt years earlier. The later DE-CIX release gives a different traffic timetable: end-2026. The older wording is not evidence that the region had no exchange; at most, “first” needs a narrower description of the new state-backed, DE-CIX-operated platform.

The economic question is consequently not whether two IXPs can coexist. It is whether the new one buys outcomes that the existing arrangement could not supply at comparable cost. That requires a before-and-after account: networks actually connected, distinct destinations newly reachable, traffic exchanged locally, services ordered and paid for, and paths that remain available during a tested failure. If the aim is public resilience rather than commercial return, the state should still publish what resilience means and how it will be measured. “Connected to a global ecosystem” is an offer; a route that survives a real cut is an outcome.

A public investment can rationally fund an option before demand is fully visible. But the option has value only if someone can exercise it: networks must connect, paths must be independent, operating roles must be clear, and users must be able to see what the public capital bought. ALPSiX’s first listed names make that test unusually concrete. They give Carinthia a known incumbent baseline against which the new exchange can prove addition rather than merely announce arrival.

Sources