/27 the new /24

Mon Oct 12 17:27:59 UTC 2015

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Todd Underwood <toddunder at gmail.com> wrote:
> all,
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Morrow
> <morrowc.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood <toddunder at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes
>>> that serve these kinds of collections of people.
>>>
>>
>> this conversation is sort of like the ipv6 part earlier though... 'if
>> people want to do this, cool! if they don't or can't for $REASONS also
>> cool.'
>
> oh, for sure.  anyone who wants to should, of course.
>
> i'm just pointing out (in opposition to the drumbeat of "MOAR IXes
> EVERYWHERE!!!" message) that IXes are often not that useful and people
> should critically evaluate whether they need one and would benefit
> from the cost.

sure... folk in a position to do so might want to look at their
netflow/etc data and decide to where they send/receive the most
traffic, if it's their neighbor consider saying: "Howdy neighbor! how
about we uncongest our longhaul and send these bits over a local
ethernet? Oh! jane's also in the mix, let's get together on a hp
switch and win!"

> so far, the "coolness", "psychological", "possible future industry"
> benefits are all cited.  that's fine.  but there's often zero business
> case for an IX outside of major fibre confluences.

'major' perhaps depends on your perspective here, right?

Sure, in Chicago where boatloads of east/west (and some North/South)
fiber shares conduit it sure seems clearly a win to have an IX
there... but I bet if you have 1g to SEA from ANK... losing 200mbps to
crappy-gammer-uturn traffic would be nice to avoid too, eh? Or hell
email even...

anyway, sure more numbers and metrics and thought seems like a good
plan, just like in the v6 discussion earlier.