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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi Dave,

> On 16 juni 2016, at 16:40, Dave Temkin  wrote:



> 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.

Ok.

> 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. 

Well, we do describe our governance structure and we are always clear about 
being owned by a foundation on our information material. We even present 
financial figures at our Netnod meetings. 

But ok, maybe this could be better documented on our website. Fair enough. Our 
current website sucks somewhat and we’re in the process of reworking it, so 
I’ll take your point onboard and we’ll try to improve this. 

>  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.

Yes. And we will never agree. You and I may of course agree in one point in 
time, but all the world’s operators will never agree. I think this thread has 
proven that. Some seem to argue that all IXPs should simply be a donated L2 
switch sitting in free rack space, while others clearly need more than that. 

Having a discussion about that is useful, I agree. And it’s a discussion that 
will continue to evolve as the industry evolves. And it will maybe also reach 
different conclusions for LINX, as opposed to INEX, LONAP or Netnod (which was 
the point I was trying to make about diversity). Also, as we know, IXPs is not 
the only solution to interconnection.  

To me it was not clear that this is the conversation you wanted to have. If 
that’s the case, then great!



> 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.

This is slightly different (although somewhat related) to “what value do IXPs 
bring?”. This is about keeping the IXPs honest. Like Nick, I’m all for that. 

> 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. 

Sure. A broader discussion would be both useful and interesting.

Nurani

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

[Nurani Nimpuno]

Hi Dave,

So, I watched your presentation this week at NANOG remotely, sorry I couldn’t 
be there.

Ok, so while you make a lot of very different points in your presentations, I 
*think* the basic argument you are making is that IXPs are too expensive. 
Correct me if I’m wrong. Or more specifically, you are saying that Ams-IX, 
Linx, Netnod and DE-CIX are too expensive. You have not looked at US IXPs 
because they don’t publish their fees, and you have not looked at the whole IXP 
community. 

I think you are then also questioning if these IXPs are using their funds 
wisely. You are also stating that you are talking about these IXPs from the 
perspective of a big US provider connecting into Europe (i.e not a small local 
ISP). You question some of the IXP expansions into the US. You question the 
membership model as a viable model for IXPs. You also say that those who 
sustain the IXPs growth should benefit from them. And you question why there 
are so many IXPs, and not only a handful of very big ones. I hope I have 
captured this correctly. 

Ok, so firstly, I must say I’m a little disappointed that you or your staff 
have never approach us to discuss any of this. We have Netnod meetings twice a 
year, we have been present at many of the same events in the last year and we 
have always strived to be open, transparent and to listen to our entire 
customer base. 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. 

But ok, let’s leave that aside. I will try to address some of your points.

Firstly as many have pointed out, these four IXPs are not representative of all 
IXPs, and the four of us are also very different from each other. 

I can’t address the IXP expansion into the US. And I don’t represent a 
membership-based IXP. 

The European IXP community is a very diverse one, serving different regions, 
markets and different types of customers. I personally believe that this rich 
diversity is one of the reasons the European interconnection scene has been 
flourishing as well as it has. There is a big difference between Europe and the 
rest of the world, particularly the US. And the European IXP community was held 
up as a model for the rest of the world by many. We have been cooperating for 
many years through the Euro-IX where our common goals have been to improve 
interconnection in the region, share information and experience and work to 
improve services for our customers. (I believe you have been trying to do the 
same through Open-IX.)

The diversity has also been seen as important to serve both the very large 
international providers like yourself, and the small local ISPs. Localising 
traffic and building a local operator community have been seen as an important 
ingredient in the value of the IXPs. Our challenge as IXPs is to find the best 
way to serve all these different needs and wishes from our very diverse 
customer base. Having only a handful of very large IXPs would in my view not 
serve these different needs as well. Personally I am a subscriber to both 
Netflix and HBO. I like diversity. :) But sure, it’s an interesting discussion 
to be had!

As others have pointed out, contrary to common belief, the technical part of an 
IXP is one of the simplest. There is a plethora of examples of IXPs in Africa, 
but also in the US, where IXPs simply are a single switch sitting in a closet 
somewhere, only serving a handful of ASes. One of the biggest challenges for an 
IXP is to gain customers and get enough gravitation and value to the exchange. 
A growing exchange point is not only a "nice-to-have" for those operating it, 
but vital to those networks who peer there. If you stop adding value to those 
networks peering at the IX, you will slowly become irrelevant. 

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. 

As for how we do this outreach and what events we go to, while I can’t speak 
for any other IXes, I seriously doubt that any professional IXP today would not 
carefully assess the business value for each event it attends. At Netnod, we 
evaluate each event we send people to, and assess and measure the value 
afterwards. 

Then I thought I would write some words about Netnod specifically since you 
bring us up. 

(As others have pointed out, the RIPE meeting social is covered partly by the 
RIPE NCC, partly by the sponsor, and partly by the participants themselves, so 
I’ll just leave that there.) 

Firstly, yes we are a