Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Martin Hannigan]

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 22:24, Ca By  wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>> 

[ clip ]


> 
> I also like sfmix and fl-ix.

FL-IX is great. It created real competition in the American South and for the 
Americas peering. I kept my interconnections to VZ while we see what happens 
when Zayo needs to recover their costs for the panel they're using to drain 
NOTA. There will be a day of reckoning, free is never free.  Its a good hedge. 

SFMIX is great. But poorly distributed. We should support their efforts, but 
how many IXPs do we need in the Bay area? AMS-IX Bay Area is creating a market 
along with SFMIX. 

There is still copious amounts of traffic at VZ NOTA MIA. Two in a market works 
well IMHO. 

Best,

-M<

Re: Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

[Ca By]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:

> a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest:
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/
>
>
> https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Most-Programmable-Networks.pdf
>
>
> Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower
> cost 100GbE whitebox switches.
>

Where is the price tag? Why would you think it is inexpensive?

I do think p4 is very interesting, but is it really much different from
openflow? Which...umm ... Did not succeed in the market.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/15/16 8:24 PM, Ca By wrote:


Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face
2 or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up
process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about
policy And they do what members want.



Yeah, I guess. Although many of the policy proposals I see on ppml about 
IPv4-this or IPv4-that post runout are eye roll territory for me.


~Seth

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Ca By]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> There’s a difference between the cost and the product.  As regards the
>> cost, Arnold is exactly right.  Across the many hundreds of exchanges that
>> we’ve worked with over the past 22 years, our observation has been that, at
>> a rough average, most IXPs spend 45% of their first-year effort on location
>> selection, 45% on governance definition and establishment, and 10% on
>> technical decisions and implementation.  But the total effort and the
>> governance portion both increase drastically for those that choose to
>> handle money; at a very, very rough average, about four-fold.  In
>> subsequent years, location selection generally drops away to near zero,
>> except in cases like the JINX, and technical work dips for the first couple
>> of years, and then spikes once every three years or so as switches are
>> replaced and new configs are needed.  Many exchanges have an annual
>> in-person meeting where elections are conducted and policy changes
>> ratified, so that typically becomes the largest ongoing expense, as Arnold
>> implies.
>>
>
> Why do IXes seek to create a bureaucracy that needs to be fed increasing
> sums of money?
>
> ~Seth
>

Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face 2
or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up
process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about
policy And they do what members want.

Much of our industry can be gleened by googling pictures of "peering
cruise". At my office, we joke about that a lot. Peering cruise ...jeeshhh.

I can't recommend SIX enough. Epic IX, amazing support.  I get much better
support from SIX than any of my transit providers. Amazing support.

I also like sfmix and fl-ix.

Barefoot "Tofino": 6.4 Tbps whitebox switch silicon?

[Eric Kuhnke]

a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest:

http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/

https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Most-Programmable-Networks.pdf


Based on their investors, could have interesting results for much lower
cost 100GbE whitebox switches.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:

There’s a difference between the cost and the product.  As regards the cost, 
Arnold is exactly right.  Across the many hundreds of exchanges that we’ve 
worked with over the past 22 years, our observation has been that, at a rough 
average, most IXPs spend 45% of their first-year effort on location selection, 
45% on governance definition and establishment, and 10% on technical decisions 
and implementation.  But the total effort and the governance portion both 
increase drastically for those that choose to handle money; at a very, very 
rough average, about four-fold.  In subsequent years, location selection 
generally drops away to near zero, except in cases like the JINX, and technical 
work dips for the first couple of years, and then spikes once every three years 
or so as switches are replaced and new configs are needed.  Many exchanges have 
an annual in-person meeting where elections are conducted and policy changes 
ratified, so that typically becomes the largest ongoing expense, as Arnold 
implies.


Why do IXes seek to create a bureaucracy that needs to be fed increasing 
sums of money?


~Seth

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Bill Woodcock]

>>> On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> A non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results
>>> could be screwing its "customers" over more than a MRC-based
>>> for-profit IX that does produce.
>> 
>> On 15.06.2016 21:14, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> An IX just needs to "produce" a layer 2 peering fabric. That's not a
>> tall order to get results from. Anything beyond that is extra fluff.
>> Some people want to pay more for the fluff, some don't.
> 
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Arnold Nipper  wrote:
> This is a *common* misunderstanding.
> The by far easiest part of running a successful IXP is the technical part.
> The more challenging is to build a community around it. And that's
> purely non technical and involves a lot of *social* networking and
> bringing people together.

There’s a difference between the cost and the product.  As regards the cost, 
Arnold is exactly right.  Across the many hundreds of exchanges that we’ve 
worked with over the past 22 years, our observation has been that, at a rough 
average, most IXPs spend 45% of their first-year effort on location selection, 
45% on governance definition and establishment, and 10% on technical decisions 
and implementation.  But the total effort and the governance portion both 
increase drastically for those that choose to handle money; at a very, very 
rough average, about four-fold.  In subsequent years, location selection 
generally drops away to near zero, except in cases like the JINX, and technical 
work dips for the first couple of years, and then spikes once every three years 
or so as switches are replaced and new configs are needed.  Many exchanges have 
an annual in-person meeting where elections are conducted and policy changes 
ratified, so that typically becomes the largest ongoing expense, as Arnold 
implies.

As regards the product, no, Seth, the layer 2 peering fabric is merely a 
necessary precondition for producing bandwidth.  The actual bandwidth 
production has other preconditions as well: peers physically connected to the 
peering switch fabric, BGP sessions established between the peers, routes 
advertised across those sessions, a reasonable matching of potential traffic 
sources and sinks available through those routes, and a set of customer 
behaviors that prefer those source/sink matchings.  Only then does an IXP 
produce bandwidth.  So, the role of a salesperson or advocate or evangelist or 
tout can be a net beneficial one, if they do a good job of recruiting 
participants, making sure they follow through with peering, and encouraging the 
preference of locally-available content.  WAIX was among the first IXPs to do 
this well, in my opinion.

-Bill






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Arnold Nipper]

On 15.06.2016 21:14, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of
>> the organization has little to do with the members getting screwed
>> over. A non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results
>> could be screwing its "customers" over more than a MRC-based
>> for-profit IX that does produce.
> 
> 
> An IX just needs to "produce" a layer 2 peering fabric. That's not a 
> tall order to get results from. Anything beyond that is extra fluff. 
> Some people want to pay more for the fluff, some don't.
> 

This is a *common* misunderstanding.

The by far easiest part of running a successful IXP is the technical part.

The more challenging is to build a community around it. And that's
purely non technical and involves a lot of *social* networking and
bringing people together.


btdt
Arnold
-- 
Arnold Nipper
email: arn...@nipper.de  phone: +49 6224 5593407 2
mobile: +49 172 2650958  fax:   +49 6224 5593407 9



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Arnold Nipper]

On 15.06.2016 20:23, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> So here we are now... Where do we want to go?
> 
> I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more
> services but also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple,
> scalable and cheap solutions!
> 

You all know this saying: Fast, Good or Cheap. Pick any two!

> I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some
> nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a
> separate switch :)
> 

Unfortunately the IXP world - at least for the really big IXPs - is not
longer that simple. Paradise was yesterday ;-)


btdt
Arnold
-- 
Arnold Nipper
email: arn...@nipper.de  phone: +49 6224 5593407 2
mobile: +49 172 2650958  fax:   +49 6224 5593407 9



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

[Donn Lasher via NANOG]

On 6/12/16, 8:10 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen" 
 wrote:



>On 6/7/16 4:23 AM, Davide Davini wrote:
>> Today I discovered Netflix flagged my IPv6 IP block as "proxy/VPN" and I
>> can't use it if I don't disable the HE tunnel, which is the only way for
>> me to have IPv6 at the moment.
>
>
>This is a rights management issue not a technical one. Netflix is not to 
>blame, HE is not to blame. Hate on geolcaotion all you want, but that's 
>what the content owners insist upon and Netflix has no choice but to 
>disable access from sources that they can't geolocate well enough to 
>make the content owners happy.
>
>~Seth

As someone who has been trying to get solid, consistent IPv6 at home since 
2010, I continue to resort back to my HE tunnels, which have been both useful 
and dependable.

Given the data Netflix client has available to it (IPv4 address, IPv6 address, 
anything else exposed to android/IOS/windows/etc app) it’s surprising to me 
that missing/incorrect geolocation data on an IPv6 address is enough to block 
service.

The end result is, yet again, making IPv6 adoption harder than it needs to be.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Mike Hammett]

Getting people to show up can be a challenge. I've been asked by members of two 
midwestern IXes to come to their markets because their existing 
donation-supported loose and easy IX isn't really doing anything for them. Not 
arguing models, arguing that what should matter is results. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Seth Mattinen"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:14:21 PM 
Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? 

On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of the 
> organization has little to do with the members getting screwed over. A 
> non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results could be screwing 
> its "customers" over more than a MRC-based for-profit IX that does produce. 


An IX just needs to "produce" a layer 2 peering fabric. That's not a 
tall order to get results from. Anything beyond that is extra fluff. 
Some people want to pay more for the fluff, some don't. 

~Seth 

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:

I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of the organization has 
little to do with the members getting screwed over. A non-profit donation-based IX that 
doesn't produce results could be screwing its "customers" over more than a 
MRC-based for-profit IX that does produce.



An IX just needs to "produce" a layer 2 peering fabric. That's not a 
tall order to get results from. Anything beyond that is extra fluff. 
Some people want to pay more for the fluff, some don't.


~Seth

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/15/16 11:23, Sander Steffann wrote:

I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but 
also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap 
solutions!



That was one thing mentioned in the talk, "just give me layer 2" or 
something to that effect.


~Seth

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:

I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some 
nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a separate 
switch :)


So how should the larger distributed IXPs solve this? Provide optical DWDM 
transport? Dark fiber? What if there are no chassis on the market large 
enough to accomodate creating a single switch for all customers to connect 
to? Have multiple L2 domains and require people to connect to multiple 
switches? Even bumping people off of an existing switch when that is full, 
to move some traffic over to another new switch chassis?


What about buffer requirements? If you want a buffered switch, it 
increases capex and lowers number of switch-models that can be used. 
Microbuffered switches may lose packets in microbursts when ports are 
being run (near) full.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Randy Bush]

> I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some
> nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a
> separate switch :)

come to seattle.  but mikael has a point.  big peers do their own
s-flow, and sparkly things.  then smaller ix members want those things
too, but can or will not do it for themselves.  and soon they find an ix
engineer who wants to show their sparkle fu.  next thing you know, there
is a salesperson to take orders and promte sparkly things.  slippery
slope.

like nanog itself, when you start to assess quality by measuring
quantity, you get a low end american supermarket, a jillion false
choices of poor food.

randy

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Sander Steffann]

> So here we are now... Where do we want to go?

I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but 
also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap 
solutions!

I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some nice 
graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a separate switch :)

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Randy Bush wrote:

that is where the big euro exchanges started.  then they got equinix 
envy and colonialism.  let's see (and help) the six avoid these diseases 
over the next years.


Well, the customers also wanted more functions and features. They wanted 
sFLOW statistics to show traffic, customer portals, better SLAs, 
distributed IXes, remote peering, more hand-holding when connecting etc. 
They also told IX operators that it was good if they did 
good-for-the-Internet things. They also sent lawyers to (re)negotiate 
contracts, demand special discounts, treat the IXP like any other supplier 
of services that you want to negotiate with.


So now IXPs started to look a lot more like small/medium ISPs than 
anything else. This means economy of scale, which means expansion to get 
bigger footprint using same systems makes sense.


So here we are now... Where do we want to go?

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Randy Bush]

> Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model

that is where the big euro exchanges started.  then they got equinix
envy and colonialism.  let's see (and help) the six avoid these diseases
over the next years.

randy

Re: Link-local v6 and mobile phones

[joel jaeggli]

On 6/15/16 8:56 AM, Willy MANGA wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> a little question :)
> 
> For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
> link-local communication between mobile phones ?

the link local address is bound to eps bearer the other end of which is
the p-gw.

so it's a point-to-point link.

so you say what about the radio bearer?

there are two kinds, the srb where signalling is present, and the user
data which is associated with an eps databearer.

> While I understand it's layer 2 related,  am i able for example to make
> ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ?

appart from your nexthop, no.

> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Link-local v6 and mobile phones

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Willy MANGA wrote:


Hello,

a little question :)

For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
link-local communication between mobile phones ?

While I understand it's layer 2 related,  am i able for example to make
ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ?


No. Your phone has a tunnel to a node in the mobile network and that's the 
only one you can send packets to. It's a GTP tunnel, but it's very similar 
to GRE or IPIP or whatever.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Link-local v6 and mobile phones

[Willy MANGA]

Hello,

a little question :)

For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
link-local communication between mobile phones ?

While I understand it's layer 2 related,  am i able for example to make
ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ?


-- 
Willy Manga (from where I stand mobile operators do not use yet v6 :-\ )

freenode: ongolaBoy
Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team
https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

I hope you'll excuse the aggressive snipping, as I wanted to try to address
as many of your points without repeating myself as possible.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> With respect to all parties involved in this discussion, I'd suggest
> that these four IXPs are not representative of the IXP community in the
> areas that you talked about, namely size, marketing budgets, corporate
> profit / surplus or expansion intentions.
>

They are representative of the most important IXPs to deliver traffic from
in Western Europe.

I would posit that what defines important to me may not be what defines
important to you and the same can be said when you look at how various
"internet" companies look at what's important in their vertical.


>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit?pref=2=1#gid=0
>
> I have heard people from other large US
> multinationals say that LINX's outreach and policy representation alone
> were worth the port charges they pay.


I dedicated an entire slide to this. I think Malcom does great work.


> Netnod runs a dns root server
> system (i.root-servers.net) as well as a heavy duty time service.


There are others who do this for no cost and some who do it for government
money. Whether or not my port fees should subsidize this is a valid
question, and was brought up in the Q afterwards.


>
> Regarding the pricing reduction on page 16 of your preso, the US$ and
> UK£ are not much different than what they were 5 years ago, but the €
> has dropped by 30% against the US$.
>

You speak to this below, however if my business is primarily run in USD
(which was the relevant use case presented: I'm a US company deciding if I
should peer in Europe or buy transit) then those currency fluctuations have
a very different impact than if I'm a European company functioning
primarily in local currency.


>
> You made the point that some US companies buy services in Europe using
> US$, but not all do.
>

Not all do. Again, this wasn't an exhaustive list of what every IXP and
every member does. This is what I see, and the entire presentation was
framed as that. How currency fluctuations impact my business will likely
vary significantly from how they impact yours.


> Regardless of all that, Job's pricing spreadsheet suggests that the
> pricing models are substantially lower for the other IXPs in his list,
> and have seen proportional reductions at least equal to transit pricing
> drops, if not greater.  If your talk was about IXPs in general, this was
> an important omission.
>

There are absolutely some great pricing models on IXPs. There are also some
terrible ones. I highlighted the ones I find to be bad. Again, my
presentation, my opinion, in the same way that someone might stand up and
say "Cisco sucks because they don't have the CLI I want" or "Juniper sucks
because they charge too much for ports with TCAM". I don't have to then
present an exhaustive list of those that are better in order to validate my
claim.

I did purposefully mention SIX as a polar opposite example - there is
definitely a happy medium to be found.


> Two of the organisations you mentioned are member-owned and are bound by
> formal votes from their membership.  Member votes are, in fact, legally
> binding in most if not all member-owned IXPs that I'm aware of in
> Europe.  Netnod, DECIX and many others are not participant-owned, so
> this does not apply.
>

Which I mentioned in my presentation. I refrained from exhaustively
explaining each model as IANAL and didn't feel it made sense for me to
attempt to explain four different nations laws. I did invite comment from
the floor for the organizations mentioned to do so, and they declined.

To be clear: I did apologize both in the Plenary and then later on Twitter
if the "Membership" slide was misleading, as I did not intend on implying
that LINX is not a member owned organization.


>
> In the area of marketing budgets and expansion, there is probably a
> correlation between the two, but I think it's worth mentioning that
> pretty much no other IXP - at least out of those mentioned in Job's
> spreadsheet - have anything close to that % of their overall budgets
> dedicated to marketing
>

It wasn't. It was about the IXPs that mattered to me. If we had an entire
day to talk about this I could've been way more exhaustive (and everyone
would've been way more exhausted...). LONAP and INEX are great counter
examples.


> If people don't like the idea of LINX, DE-CIX and AMS-IX expanding
> outside their current markets, they don't have to connect to them and
> that's ok because this is a fully unregulated market: no-one has ever
> forced anyone to connect to any IXP.
>

Completely agree!


>
> Otherwise, thanks for giving a great talk - it's both refreshing and
> stimulating to have this discussion, and it's great to get feedback from
> the community about it.
>
>

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Nick Hilliard]

Hi Dave,

Dave Temkin wrote:
> General, with the four being used as varying examples.

Then there is a problem - you only presented info relating to those four
organisations, not for any other IXP, at least outside a small number of
sponsor-supported IXPs in the US.

With respect to all parties involved in this discussion, I'd suggest
that these four IXPs are not representative of the IXP community in the
areas that you talked about, namely size, marketing budgets, corporate
profit / surplus or expansion intentions.  In addition, Job's excellent
pricing comparison sheet:

> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit?pref=2=1#gid=0

... suggests that of the four you chose to talk about, all of them are
in the top pricing bracket.  This is an observation rather than a
criticism of this pricing, btw - I have heard people from other large US
multinationals say that LINX's outreach and policy representation alone
were worth the port charges they pay.  Netnod runs a dns root server
system (i.root-servers.net) as well as a heavy duty time service.  We're
all free to agree or disagree with whether these things are worthwhile
spending money on, but it would have been useful from the point of view
of the broader discussion to have mentioned them in the main body of
your presentation.

Regarding the pricing reduction on page 16 of your preso, the US$ and
UK£ are not much different than what they were 5 years ago, but the €
has dropped by 30% against the US$.  The transit pricing you quoted was
base-lined in £ from the Teleogeography source (but converted to US$ at
today's rate), but both DE-CIX and AMS-IX's prices are denominated in €.
 This means that the reduction in pricing in local currency for those
two IXPs is out by about 30% with respect to the transit pricing.  I
haven't worked out the figures exactly, but in the case of AMS-IX, it
looks like this would bring their price reductions over 5 years to be
~equivalent to the drop in transit pricing.

Also, AMS-IX's 2015 report shows a net operating loss of €1.3 million.
LINX made a operating loss in 2015 too, even if they were also EBITDA
positive like AMS-IX.  The EBITDA figures which you gave on page 11 are
important indicators of a company's financial health, but the net
surplus or loss needs to be given.  There's a breakdown in their annual
reports:

> https://www.linx.net/documents/www.linx.net/uploads/files/LINX-2015-Annual-Report.pdf
> https://ams-ix.net/annual_report/AMS-IX_Annual-Report_2015.pdf

You made the point that some US companies buy services in Europe using
US$, but not all do.  Plenty of US companies buying IXP ports in europe
pay from local offices using euro / pounds / whatever the local currency
is.  I'm not being a bean-counter, so can't speculate about which option
works better for which company but I'm sure there are sound financial
reasons why some US companies buy in dollars rather than local currency.

Regardless of all that, Job's pricing spreadsheet suggests that the
pricing models are substantially lower for the other IXPs in his list,
and have seen proportional reductions at least equal to transit pricing
drops, if not greater.  If your talk was about IXPs in general, this was
an important omission.

Two of the organisations you mentioned are member-owned and are bound by
formal votes from their membership.  Member votes are, in fact, legally
binding in most if not all member-owned IXPs that I'm aware of in
Europe.  Netnod, DECIX and many others are not participant-owned, so
this does not apply.

In the area of marketing budgets and expansion, there is probably a
correlation between the two, but I think it's worth mentioning that
pretty much no other IXP - at least out of those mentioned in Job's
spreadsheet - have anything close to that % of their overall budgets
dedicated to marketing, or have similar expansion plans.  I know that a
lot of european IXP marketing budgets are pitifully small.  Again, this
needs to be mentioned if your talk was about IXPs in general.

If people don't like the idea of LINX, DE-CIX and AMS-IX expanding
outside their current markets, they don't have to connect to them and
that's ok because this is a fully unregulated market: no-one has ever
forced anyone to connect to any IXP.

Otherwise, thanks for giving a great talk - it's both refreshing and
stimulating to have this discussion, and it's great to get feedback from
the community about it.


Nick
--
CTO INEX, but these are personal opinions

Re: Comcast (DOCSIS) issues in Boston?

[John Neiberger]

I'd be glad to take a look. I'll reply off-list to get more details from
you.

Thanks,
John

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Spencer Ryan  wrote:

> Anyone seeing any issues with routing into Boston? We have a DOCSIS link
> that seems unroutable past 350 E Cermak in Chicago, traceroutes from two
> carries here in Michigan stop there. We have a fiber (EDI/BGP) with them at
> the same location and I'm not seeing any issues on that link.
>
> The site itself can ping it's default gateway but can't get anywhere else.
>
>
> *Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net
> *Arbor Networks*
> +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
> www.arbornetworks.com
>

Comcast (DOCSIS) issues in Boston?

[Spencer Ryan]

Anyone seeing any issues with routing into Boston? We have a DOCSIS link
that seems unroutable past 350 E Cermak in Chicago, traceroutes from two
carries here in Michigan stop there. We have a fiber (EDI/BGP) with them at
the same location and I'm not seeing any issues on that link.

The site itself can ping it's default gateway but can't get anywhere else.


*Spencer Ryan* | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net
*Arbor Networks*
+1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
www.arbornetworks.com

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

General, with the four being used as varying examples. I could have included US 
IXP's, but almost none publish their prices and the ones that do only started 
recently, so the comparison wasn't worthwhile. 




On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:39 AM -0500, "Nick Hilliard"  wrote:










Dave Temkin wrote:
> I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
> actual organizational structure.

Dave,

was this talk about IXPs in general, or the 4 IXPs you named in your talk?

Nick

Re: Verizon Wireless 4G Voice/Data

[Allen Kitchen]

Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a Florida 
LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this case, SW PA.) 
Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we upgrade our 
systems" on selected My Vz pages. 

..Allen


> On Jun 14, 2016, at 18:34, Kraig Beahn  wrote:
> 
> Looks like Verizon Wireless 4G voice, intermittent data services and some
> 3g voices services are currently non-functional, specifically in the SE,
> however, seeing reports nationwide as well.
> 
> 
> --

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Nick Hilliard]

Dave Temkin wrote:
> I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
> actual organizational structure.

Dave,

was this talk about IXPs in general, or the 4 IXPs you named in your talk?

Nick

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:25:04AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher 
wrote:
> I am not at NANOG67 and am following this issue remotely.  Excuse me if I am 
> getting this all wrong.  Dave shows a slide that LINX made $2.3M profit and 
> AMS-IX made $4.1M last year and Randy states "that the IXPs run us over to 
> make an extra penny"?  

When I vew the presentation from a raw money basis, it seems like
just a "we hate our suppliers" whine.  For instance it's quite
normal for a "not for profit" to both pay salaries and marketing,
and to even "make a profit" from a raw accounting perspective.
There's also nothing in the non-profit rules that disallow marketing
departments or spending money on socials.  If those things further
their non-profit mission, it's all good.

However there is another perspective where I think a good point is
raised, and perhaps a bit lost.  Some of these IXP's are "community
run".  Or well, they say they are "community run".  But when the
curtian is pulled back, perhaps they look a lot less community run
and a lot more like a business with a savvy marketing department
leading people to believe they are community run.

I do wonder how many people became a _member_ of these "community
run" IXP's thinking that entited them to some say over how it was
run, only to discover due to the bylaws and corporate structure
they have in fact little to no say over anything?  That is a form
of bait-and-switch, and _may_ be a problem with some IXP's.  Maybe
the community wants a no-marketing cost-recovery co-op service, and
this is a way of rallying and organizing for that.

It's on that point that the presentation is classic NANOG, a bunch
of operators getting together to discuss their common issues and
figure out if there if there is a path forward to make things better.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgp8_ySfki63Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Mike Hammett]

I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of the 
organization has little to do with the members getting screwed over. A 
non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results could be screwing its 
"customers" over more than a MRC-based for-profit IX that does produce. 

I also think that the individual merits of an organization or business model is 
pretty astray from the OP's original point (correct or not) about using the 
NANOG presentation platform for thinly veiled personal agenda. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:43:13 AM 
Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? 

Re: Item #3 there, the Google Docs spreadsheet with the IX costs... Scroll 
all the way down to the bottom in $/Mbps and you will find the SIX. 

Everyone in the Pacific NW should appreciate the excellent work that the 
SIX does. It's a nonprofit with transparency in its finances, a health cash 
reserve for emergencies and new equipment and meets very stringent uptime 
and reliability requirements. 

ISP entities and enterprise end users 1000 km away from the SIX in random 
locations in British Columbia, Montana, Utah and other western US states 
benefit from it. People who have no idea what an IX is or how it functions 
have better, faster and lower cost last mile Internet access thanks to 
their local small ISP that has had the foresight to purchased a transport 
circuit to Seattle to reach the SIX. 

It is worth mentioning that the fine people at the NWAX in Portland are 
working to build on the example set by the SIX, and are a 501(c)6 
nonprofit: http://www.nwax.net/ 


On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote: 

> 
> > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Matt Peterson  wrote: 
> > 
> > This week at NANOG67, a presentation was given early on that did not 
> > reflect well for our community at large. 
> 
> I think that the data presented was interesting but the style of 
> the presenter and tone could have been different. It seemed 
> to be a variant of “The Rent is Too Damn High”[1] while it can 
> be interesting, there wasn’t a complete talk there IMHO. 
> 
> The feedback mechanism for this is honestly the survey[2]. I’m confident 
> that the PC will take this input seriously and work with presenters 
> in this regard. 
> 
> The IXP cost sheet[3] that is being maintained by Job I think gives an 
> idea of the peering vs transit costs assuming various bitrates and 
> list prices. 
> 
> The fates of IXPs and their roles will naturally resolve itself through 
> market economics I suspect. 
> 
> - Jared 
> 
> - snip - links - snip - 
> 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party 
> 2 - https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog67/survey 
> 3 - 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit#gid=0
>  

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Aled Morris  wrote:

>
>
> Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.
>
> I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
> generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they are
> paying.
>
> Is Dave trying to say they are being duped?  Is he trying to identify a
> need for regulation?
>

I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
actual organizational structure.

I was also opining on how these IXPs could be better; mainly, how they
choose to spend money.



>
> Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model and suggesting the customers of
> the existing exchanges should be looking to organise an alternative in
> their localities.
>

Absolutely correct (which should answer Hank's question, as well).


>
> Or perhaps this is a wakeup call for LoNAP and the smaller exchanges who
> "compete" with AMS-IX, DE-CIX and NetNod - stop trying to mimic their
> commercial models (big fees which pay for staff and marketing) and look
> instead at the lean SIX as the way of offering a service at a price
> competitive to transit.
>

Also absolutely correct. I don't want to see them falling into a trap of
conflating marketing and outreach and/or offering an overly rich product
set at the cost of price and operational simplicity.


> Or was there a hidden message in Dave's presentation that I missed?
>

Seems like you got it.


> Aled
>

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Randy Bush]

> I am not at NANOG67 and am following this issue remotely.  Excuse me
> if I am getting this all wrong.  Dave shows a slide that LINX made
> $2.3M profit and AMS-IX made $4.1M last year and Randy states "that
> the IXPs run us over to make an extra penny"?

confusing coincidence and causality is a common mistake

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Aled Morris]

On 14 June 2016 at 22:38, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> So I just watched the video of Dave’s talk.
>

Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.

I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they are
paying.

Is Dave trying to say they are being duped?  Is he trying to identify a
need for regulation?

I would hope that any company looking to join an IX does so with their eyes
open and with due diligence (and I don't think it is my place to tell them
if they should or not use an IX, unless they hire me to give them that
advice :-)

Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model and suggesting the customers of
the existing exchanges should be looking to organise an alternative in
their localities.

Or perhaps this is a wakeup call for LoNAP and the smaller exchanges who
"compete" with AMS-IX, DE-CIX and NetNod - stop trying to mimic their
commercial models (big fees which pay for staff and marketing) and look
instead at the lean SIX as the way of offering a service at a price
competitive to transit.

Or was there a hidden message in Dave's presentation that I missed?

Aled

Re: Webmail / IMAPS software for end-user clients in 2016

[Adrian M]

>From AfterLogic you may use the following webmail clients:

- without calendar -> WebMail-lite PHP
- with personal calendar -> WebMail PHP
- with calendar and full sharing exchange style -> Aurora

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Guillaume Tournat 
wrote:

> Zimbra is a full featured groupware server. I don't think you can just use
> the webmail part with existing IMAP server.
>
> So it doesn't fulfill requirements stated by initial poster.
>
>
>
> > Le 13 juin 2016 à 21:24, Greg Sowell  a écrit :
> >
> > +1 for Zimbra
> >
> >> On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Jim Lucas  wrote:
> >>
> >> June 8 2016 6:08 PM, "Eric Kuhnke"  wrote:
> >>> If you had to put up a public facing webmail interface for people to
> use,
> >>> and maintain it for the foreseeable future (5-6 years), what would you
> >> use?
> >>>
> >>> Roundcube?
> >>> https://roundcube.net
> >>>
> >>> Rainloop?
> >>> http://www.rainloop.net
> >>>
> >>> Something else?
> >>>
> >>> Requirements:
> >>> Needs to be open souce and GPL, BSD or Apache licensed
> >>>
> >>> Email storage will be accessed via IMAP/TLS1.2
> >>>
> >>> Runs on a Debian based platform with apache2 or nginx
> >>>
> >>> Desktop browser CSS and mobile device CSS/HTML functionality on 4" to
> 7"
> >>> size screens with Chrome and Safari
> >>
> >> I work for an ISP, and recently we were faced with the same dilemma. We
> >> knew that our RoundCube was rather old and needed a facelift.  We
> started
> >> looking at new clients what I came across RainLoop.
> >>
> >> IMO RoundCube still doesn't have a decent working mobile theme.
> >>
> >> I went ahead and installed RainLoop on my personal server. Configuration
> >> was a breeze. The interface is very nice. And the mobile layout is very
> >> slick.
> >>
> >> I did come across a problem with displaying emails and when I emailed
> >> their support email, they were very quick to respond.  And within 24
> hors
> >> they were able to write a fix for my specific issue and build a new
> release
> >> for me to download and test.
> >>
> >> I think that says something for their support team.
> >>
> >> Even if my office doesn't adopt RainLoop,  I will continue using it on
> my
> >> personal server for the forsee able future.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jim Lucas
> >> C - 5414085189
> >> H - 5413234219
> >> http://cmsws.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > GregSowell.com
> > TheBrothersWISP.com
>
>