NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Dave Temkin dave at temk.in
Thu Jun 16 14:40:08 UTC 2016


Hi Nurani,

Much of what you've asked me below is answered up-thread, so I'm not going
to rehash it for the sanity of the others following this discussion. I have
snipped what hasn't been.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at netnod.se> wrote:

>
>
>  I take your point about the Netnod fees (even though I would also like to
> point out that we have actually reduced our other port fees for 100mbps,
> 1G, remote peering). But I’m not sure why you haven’t brought it to us
> directly. Netflix has been at several Netnod meetings in the past, so we
> have had plenty of opportunity to discuss this.
>

Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees".
You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned
Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and pointed out
that I seek to help the entire market, not just my employer, better
understand how IXPs price their services, what things are negotiable, and
what things need to change. Call it thinly-veiled, but I didn't even use my
employer slide master - this was geared as a community discussion.


> And I don’t represent a membership-based IXP.
>

An important distinction. Poring through
http://www.netnod.se/about/documents , there is very little transparency
into the actual operations of NetNod.

>
>  If you stop adding value to those networks peering at the IX, you will
> slowly become irrelevant.
>

And therein lies the rub, we (many of us, not just you and I) disagree
about what "adding value" is defined as. I'm glad we can have this
conversation.


>
> While some think that a good technical solution would sell itself, I
> believe that is a fallacy (not only in the IXP world). Netnod started out
> as a very small IXPs with only a few local operators connected to it. And I
> strongly believe that if we hadn’t done as much outreach as we do, we
> would’ve stayed tiny until this day.
>

Outreach is fantastic!


>
>
> We work in a similar way with our pricing. (You mention that there is a
> lot of negotiations on pricing with IXPs.) I would like to be 100% clear
> that for the Netnod IX, we don’t negotiate or give “sweet deals” to anyone.
> We publish our fee schedule and we stick to it. Whenever someone wants a
> special deal (which happens often, particularly with the larger customers),
> our response is that we treat everyone equally. If you want a cheaper deal,
> then another customer is basically funding your reduction. So we don’t do
> this. We believe this is more fair and transparent.
>

That's fantastic, and I agree with this approach. And that's why it's
important to make this a community discussion, not a "Netflix and Netnod"
discussion.


>
> As for a general discussion about costs, service levels and IXPs, I think
> there is a very interesting discussion that could be had with a more
> focused discussion. How do “we” best serve today's very diverse set of
> operators? How does an IXP strike that balance? How do operators best solve
> their interconnection needs (through IXPs, private peering, transit etc)
> and is that changing? What type of interconnection environment do we
> believe best scales Internet growth in the future? What is the total cost
> of interconnection, where are the big costs, what are the different models
> and where is the whole industry moving? Now THOSE are discussions I
> personally would find very valuable!
>

We agree. I'm really glad that this has sprouted so many threads of
discussion. This seems to have kicked off the discussion within the larger
community beyond just the four examples, and I think that what we've seen
thus far is healthy discourse.



More information about the NANOG mailing list