NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Fri Jun 17 14:59:54 UTC 2016


In a message written on Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 02:58:12PM +0100, Marty Strong wrote:
> Yes, if the IXP is distributed across more than one building then you have choice as to where you (and other people) put their equipment, so you may have to go to another building to connect to certain peers. Sadly nobody lives in a perfect world, so IMO having the IXP distributed across multiple buildings is better as you can connect to all those who are in your building directly, and peer with the rest over the distributed IXP.

I don't think there is an absolute right or wrong answer.

The ISP who needs to connect to 100 ISP's at 50M each has a
dramatically different need than the ISP that needs to connect to
20 ISP's at 6x100G each.  Both exist in the world.

The presenter clearly thought that a number of IXP's aren't serving
their customers/members well.  What we're finding out in this thread
is how many folks agree or disagree!  :)

Personally I'm with another poster, the real problem here is colos
that want to charge large MRC's for a cross connect.  I know of at
least one still trying to get $1000/mo for a fiber pair to another
customer.  For $1000/mo I can get GigE transit delivered _to my
office_ by multiple carriers.  To charge that for a cross connect
is just so, so wrong.

IMHO in building fiber should be NRC only, but if it has a MRC component
(to pay for future troubleshooting or somesuch) it should be small, like
$5/mo.  That's $60 year to do nothing, and even if the $40 an hour fiber
tech spends a hour troubleshooting _every fiber_ (which doesn't happen)
the colo still makes money.

Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160617/cf84846c/attachment.sig>


More information about the NANOG mailing list