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

I have to agree with Rick here. Owen > On Jun 29, 2016, at 22:43 , Rick Astley wrote: > > I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you > have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection > (both on and off list). I would

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

I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection (both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and discussions that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of

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

On 2016-06-18 12:54, Brandon Ross wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote: What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate facility owners/managers have got into the mistaken mindset that they can get the greatest value and the most

ARIN meeting schedule (was: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?)

On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:37 PM, David Conrad wrote: > ... > Among others, yes (hint: not all the IPv4 and IPv6 address space is managed > by the RIRs). David is quite correct - IPv4 has significant portions which are administered under specification of the IETF (and this is

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

Owen > On Jun 20, 2016, at 6:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> If ARIN didn’t exist, how would you go about guaranteeing unique registered >>> GUA blocks and ASNs? Who would operate whois and in-addr.arpa, ip6.arpa? >> ICANN operates in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa. > ICANN takes the

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

> On Jun 17, 2016, at 09:03 , David Conrad wrote: > > Owen, > > On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp

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

> > Really? The x-connect is run through active equipment operated by the > data centre? > > Is this a specific service you purchased, or is this the way they > deliver x-connects? I remember fighting with Terremark around 2005 or so on this... Connecting OC-12s through them, they insisted

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

> Op 17 jun. 2016, om 21:58 heeft Arnold Nipper het volgende > geschreven: > > On 17.06.2016 10:44, Fredrik Korsbäck wrote: > >> Last year i added 0 new IXPs, upgraded 0 IXPs, but i added over 30 >> new PNI's. >> >> If IXPs wants more of those bits, adjusting prices much

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

Hi, well, you an say one thing - the talk got a lot of conversation going - most of it useful and positive and informational.isnt that the sign of a good talk? ;-) seriously, this thread has been very active/alive based on the initial trigger of his talk. as for the talk

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

On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Thomas Mangin wrote: Is this a specific service you purchased, or is this the way they deliver x-connects? It is how they provide x-connects. That's not a x-connect, that's a transport capacity service. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

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

On 20/Jun/16 10:30, Thomas Mangin wrote: > It is how they provide x-connects. Which is fine, but does not work for me. So I won't be using them. Thanks for the info, wasn't aware. Mark.

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

On 20 Jun 2016, at 9:13, Mark Tinka wrote: >> Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for >> internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2001 when I >> first became customer). >> They normally run their cables through their switches but when the >>

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

On 20/Jun/16 09:59, Thomas Mangin wrote: > > > Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for > internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being 2001 when I > first became customer). > They normally run their cables through their switches but when the > distance

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

http://exa.net.uk/about/contact-us On 17 Jun 2016, at 17:50, Dave Temkin wrote: And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs in Europe? Telecity Manchester (UK), now Equinix Manchester, have charged MRC for internal cabling since forever (in my case, forever being

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

On 17/Jun/16 19:31, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > > I would expect some kind of MRC if it has any SLA, service, or support > attached. Or someone manages it and protects the infrastructure and > enforces the rules of the facility. Or the facility uses that money to > maintain the MMR. If it's a

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

On 17/Jun/16 01:06, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > 3) Remote peering -- This is mostly a question about distance for value. > There is a clear benefit in providing multi-datacenter exchanges within a > metro, and both FL-IX and SIX are doing this with a very good value > proposition. Having the

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote: What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate facility owners/managers have got into the mistaken mindset that they can get the greatest value and the most monthly revenue from the square-footage of

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

Our DC (granted, not in the US!) charges a one-off fee of $75 to install the XC, which includes the cable too. Terminated to a 1U patch panel at TOR. Only one end pays the 1-off charge (the customer that requested the order). No ongoing charges. No one else rummages in the overheads other than

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

As I write this I'm sitting about 100 feet away (vertically) from the Westin fiber MMR, so you can definitely say that I'm biased in favor of the Westin and the SIX approach of doing things. What Randy just wrote is exactly the point I was trying to make in my last email. Some real estate

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

>> Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables. > > In the US maybe. Cross-connect prices are much more reasonable in > Europe (€0 - €50/month). > > Personally, I don't have a problem with MRCs when ordering > cross-connects: data centres are expensive to build and run. But

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

Hmm - as far as whether this was a good or bad NANOG presentation...this is some of the best discussion I've seen on list in a while. There is a frank exchange of views between many different parties. This may result in some follow-up presentations at future NANOGs by IXP operators (please!).

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

On 17.06.2016 10:44, Fredrik Korsbäck wrote: > Last year i added 0 new IXPs, upgraded 0 IXPs, but i added over 30 > new PNI's. > > If IXPs wants more of those bits, adjusting prices much more > aggresively is what can bring this back to their market, instead of > the datacenter-crossconnect

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

On 6/17/16 07:59, Leo Bicknell wrote: 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

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

Starting to see people like Telehouse move into the monthly XC market, so one might think we're at the precipice of the slippery slope. And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs in Europe? On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Leo

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

Owen, On Jun 17, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: >> >> Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp culture, >> but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin area) for

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

Leo Bicknell wrote: > Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables. In the US maybe. Cross-connect prices are much more reasonable in Europe (€0 - €50/month). Personally, I don't have a problem with MRCs when ordering cross-connects: data centres are expensive to build and

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

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

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

> It moves the monopoly to the IXP operator! I disagree, if there is only one *MAIN* building that an IXP is in then participants are going to have to go to that building, giving the colo provider the monopoly, which affects not just cross connects towards and IXP, but other participants too,

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

In a message written on Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:56:36PM +0100, Will Hargrave wrote: > Most of the major IXs in the European market operate in multiple > datacentres. Why? Because it decreases the monopoly conferred upon one > particular datacentre in a market which becomes the ‘go to’ >

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

It seems as though most subtlety is lost on this crowd, or perhaps there's just a language barrier. I'm saying that if you were to, for example, look at the homepage of https://www.peering-forum.eu and see the "Hosts" block, you might think "There are four similarly named IXPs are all similar

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

Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> To: "Dave Temkin" <d...@temk.in> Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:45:22 PM Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tippin

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

Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:17:51 PM Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? > However: exchange p

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

On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:15, Daniel Golding wrote: You said that LONAP's distributed strategy "kept datacenters honest" to use your exact quote. That implied some sort of benefit for members in acting as some sort of counterweight to (rapacious?) data center providers. I rely primarily on

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

On 17/06/16 01:09, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Hi, > > I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members, but we > can not simply because it is too expensive. I just signed a deal with he.net > for a flatrate 10G transit for about the same as the 10G Comix port cost. > The

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

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 06:03 , Ca By wrote: > > Perhaps it is me and my sensibilities, perhaps it is my miser corp culture, > but i could not even dream of asking to go to Jamaica (arin area) for the > last ARIN meeting. You are entitled to your opinion. If ARIN didn’t

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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: >[...] Only then does an IXP produce bandwidth. Minor nitpick--an IXP never 'produces' bandwidth; it facilitates movement of data between entities, but the IXP itself shouldn't be producing bandwidth. It's the allocation of

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

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

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

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing that. I realised I probably used the wrong english word here. The correct english word(s) would probably be "rationale/reason/facts", not "motivation". -- Mikael Abrahamsson

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

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Dave Temkin wrote: You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate member-mutual IXPs, commercial, and non-profit IXPs. Being a "member" of NetNod provides you with a very different set of

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

On 17 June 2016 at 03:18, Dave Temkin wrote: > A key point: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Baldur Norddahl < > baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members >> > > You meant a customer, but because of a lack of

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

A key point: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members > You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:58 PM Will Hargrave wrote: {snip} > Dan Golding disagreed with me but I can certainly speak for LONAP where > I feel our mission of “promoting efficient interconnection in the > UK” is hugely enhanced by our ability to provide services in any of > our

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

Dave Temkin wrote: > They are representative of the most important IXPs to deliver traffic > from in Western Europe. I don't doubt that they are important IXPs for delivering traffic. However, no other IXP in europe (both eastern and western) is doing expansion outside the countries that they

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

> However: exchange port fees are not my biggest enemy today. My cross connect fees have not gone down *at all*. On a proportion basis, cross connect fees have gone from "not mattering" to being an important part of any deployment cost calculation. Why aren't we raising hell about cross connect

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

Hi, I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members, but we can not simply because it is too expensive. I just signed a deal with he.net for a flatrate 10G transit for about the same as the 10G Comix port cost. The difference being that the he.net port provides much more value

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

On the point raised by this index of IXP costs - has anyone put together a table of information on the opposite side of the question: What is the cost of establishing a PNI direct crossconnect in a major IX point? This varies widely by particular

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

Hello all, I wasn't able to attend NANOG this time around, but watched Dave Temkin's presentation on youtube. My comments are: 1) Over the past 5 years: My cost for switch/router ports have gone down a lot. My cost for transit has gone down a lot. My cost for exchange ports have gone down, but

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

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:52:02PM +0200, Nurani Nimpuno wrote: > 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. I

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

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

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

Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not? I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service will be

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

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:19:22 PM Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing? Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > * zby...@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14:23 CEST]: >> Are you sure they still want

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

Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > * zby...@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14:23 CEST]: >> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these >> features separately? >> >> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for >> networks who

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

I think a fresh conversation is needed around what makes up a "minimally viable" feature set for an IXP: The days of an IXP "needing" to engineer and support a multi-tenant sFlow portal, because the only other option is shelling out the big bucks for Arbor, have long passed -- overlooking the

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

On 15 Jun 2016, at 19:23, 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! I want to go to an IXP being a

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

This thread is full of people who have never run large L2 networks stating their opinions on running large L2 networks, and they invariably underestimate their complexity and the logistics required. * ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 17:56 CEST]: maybe the complexity and the

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

> This thread is full of people who have never run large L2 networks > stating their opinions on running large L2 networks, and they > invariably underestimate their complexity and the logistics required. maybe the complexity and the logistics required are WHY they don't build large L2 networks.

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

* zby...@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14:23 CEST]: Dne 15.06.16 v 20:10 Mikael Abrahamsson napsal(a): Well, the customers also wanted more functions and features. They wanted sFLOW statistics to show traffic, customer portals, better SLAs, distributed IXes, remote

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

On 16/06/16 15:40, 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

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

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 wrote: > > > I take your point about

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

On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Owen DeLong 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 > >

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

Dne 15.06.16 v 20:10 Mikael Abrahamsson napsal(a): > 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. Are you sure they still want

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

> 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. I don’t speak for the organization

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

> On Jun 16, 2016, at 01:12, Leslie wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > >> 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

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

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > 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. > SFMIX is in 5 physical

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

> 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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

>>> 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

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

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

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

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:

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

ANOG67 - 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 does

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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?

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

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

://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuh...@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 12:43:13 AM Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and spon

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

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. > >

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

> 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

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

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

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

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

On 14/06/2016 20:49, Randy Bush wrote: > the O in nanog is operator, not sponsor, panderer, suck up, ... we're > spending millions for half debugged underperforming crap and we are > cornered by infrastructure providers (e.g. ixps) who run us over time > and again if it makes an extra penny. I

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

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 14:05 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: >>> "If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive >>> an advance >>> draft so that their reps are prepared to speak

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

So I just watched the video of Dave’s talk. While my overall impression is that it’s 51 minutes of my life that I’d rather have back and I don’t agree with several of his conclusions, I don’t see anything inherently wrong or hurtful about it. I don’t think it painted anyone in a bad light

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

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:30 PM, Daniel Golding wrote: >> "If a presentation will name a particular vendor, that vendor should receive >> an advance >> draft so that their reps are prepared to speak at the mic about their >> intentions. " > > One of the least savory aspects

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

The world of networking is in itself decentralized. In the event a certain network starts behaving badly, other networks will take appropriate action by themselves if they see it as a problem. I see no need to become a nanny state over issues like this. If someone is being belligerent and harming

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

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:40:20PM -0400, Peter Beckman wrote: > Negative feedback, respectfully and objectively delivered, should be > embraced as opportunities to improve ourselves, our products and our > services, not shunned and silenced because it points out a flaw. 1. This. A hundred

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

> 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

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

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > the O in nanog is operator, not sponsor, panderer, suck up, ... Ogre? Drive slow, Paul

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

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, Matt Peterson wrote: As a community, how do we provide constructive criticism to industry suppliers (that may also be fellow competitors, members, and/or suppliers)? For example, router vendors are routinely compared without specific names mentioned (say in the case of a

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

On 6/14/16 1:30 PM, Matt Peterson wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Daniel Golding wrote: >> Matt is being coy, for some reason. He didn't like Dave Temkin's talk about >> IXP costs. I listened very carefully and did not hear any specific members >> or people targeted

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

> A possible PC revision could have been 1) add more flavor of dominate > US IXP's (of all organization structures) - as that geographical focus > makes more sense for NANOG 2) don't list specific organizations by > name, but instead just list their organization structure and a random >

  1   2   >