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

[Owen DeLong]

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 hate to see a move to ideas and discussions
> that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of
> similar critique aimed at large routing vendors was "Help! My big expensive
> router is really expensive" at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. Perhaps the critiques
> were seen as more constructive and I don't remember the same backlash after
> the talk but I found both talks and various discussions that followed
> insightful.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Golding  wrote:
> 
>> 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!).
>> 
>> Seems that, whether you agree with Dave or not, it was successful. It also
>> seems that the IXP operators who came under the most criticism have reacted
>> with a lot of professionalism and maturity. Other IXP operators have
>> reacted pretty poorly, which is ironic.
>> 
>> Dan
>> 

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

[Rick Astley]

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
similar critique aimed at large routing vendors was "Help! My big expensive
router is really expensive" at NANOG 60 in Atlanta. Perhaps the critiques
were seen as more constructive and I don't remember the same backlash after
the talk but I found both talks and various discussions that followed
insightful.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Daniel Golding  wrote:

> 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!).
>
> Seems that, whether you agree with Dave or not, it was successful. It also
> seems that the IXP operators who came under the most criticism have reacted
> with a lot of professionalism and maturity. Other IXP operators have
> reacted pretty poorly, which is ironic.
>
> Dan
>

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

[Stephen Sprunk]

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 monthly 
revenue
from the square-footage of their building by charging additional MRC 
XC

fees to the tenants of the building.


There are some VERY sucessful companies that would strongly disagree 
with you.


When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community 
effort
to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate 
will

be MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers,
eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you 
make the

crossconnects free.


But then why would we want to do that?  If you are correct and doing
so would raise the value of the real esatate, doesn't that mean that
the building managers would be able to charge operators a whole lot
more than they are able to today, in aggregate?


If the price of XC drops to ~zero, then tenants are going to do a lot 
more of it and thereby get more value from the IX, which means people 
will be _willing_ to pay more for that real estate, rather than 
complaining about XC price-gouging.  It's as much perception as it is 
math.


OTOH, if prices climb to unreasonable levels, then more space will 
(eventually) be made available, e.g. by pushing non-IX tenants out of 
the building, by laying ample dark fiber to a nearby building for 
expansion (but still ~free XC) or by a competitor appearing.


The problems come with expansion that is _not_ nearby, i.e. XC can no 
longer be ~free, yet the operator still tries to pretend it's a single 
facility.  There are plenty of folks in the business of transporting 
bits over long distances; IMHO, an IX shouldn't be one of them.


S

--
Stephen Sprunk  "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

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

[John Curran]

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 certainly the case of the IPv6 address 
space,
the vast majority of which is administered under the stewardship of the IETF.)

> ...
> Your statement posited the nonexistence of ARIN.  ARIN is a secondary for 
> in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa (like the other RIRs) and maintains a registry for 
> the address blocks allocated to them by ICANN as the IANA Numbering Function 
> operator. If ARIN did not exist, then the reverse delegations for which ARIN 
> is authoritative could easily be managed by the other RIRs, the entities to 
> which ARIN currently delegates, or the myriad of other DNS registries. This 
> really isn't rocket science.

Also correct - the RIRs have discussed recovery scenarios necessary should
one of the RIRs experience an major operational event.  As David notes, this
is not rocket science, although it does require a modicum of preparation, both
in terms of planning and funding; e.g. 


However, the main thread of this discussion originated in response discussions
of the meeting expenses of associations in general, including some surprise that
ARIN met this spring in Jamaica.  Everyone’s free to have their own opinion on
that, but just for information’s sake, I’d point out that ARIN has a 
straightforward
meeting schedule - we meet twice per year, once jointly with NANOG in the fall,
and once independently in the spring.  The fall meeting is at locations set by
NANOG (and predominantly in the US) so we try to alternate the spring meetings
between our other two sectors - Canada and Caribbean.  We have more than 25
countries in ARIN’s region, and getting to the Caribbean once every other year 
is
important for outreach to folks in that area - for example, the attendance at 
the
Jamaica meeting showed very strong Caribbean participation (48 attendees from
the Caribbean out of 125 total) compared the typical participant distribution 
at US
and Canada-based meetings.

Anyone who has suggestions or concerns about ARIN’s meeting schedule should
reach out with specifics to myself or other folks on the ARIN Board.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[David Conrad]

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 data supplied by the RIRs and compiles it into zone files 
> which are then distributed to servers.

Among others, yes (hint: not all the IPv4 and IPv6 address space is managed by 
the RIRs).

> AIUI, most of the servers are hosted and maintained by the RIRs. Most if not 
> all of the zone file information is supplied to ICANN by the RIRs.

Perhaps you should review how the DNS works. Hint: who operates the master for 
in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa and what is the role of secondaries?

> I stand by my statement to the extent that it is close enough for the 
> purposes for which it was made.

Your statement posited the nonexistence of ARIN.  ARIN is a secondary for 
in-addr.arpa and ip6.arpa (like the other RIRs) and maintains a registry for 
the address blocks allocated to them by ICANN as the IANA Numbering Function 
operator. If ARIN did not exist, then the reverse delegations for which ARIN is 
authoritative could easily be managed by the other RIRs, the entities to which 
ARIN currently delegates, or the myriad of other DNS registries. This really 
isn't rocket science.

> Without the RIR, ICANN’s idea of what should go into ip6.arpa and in-addr.arp 
> would get pretty stale pretty fast.

Or not, as long as the entities to which ARIN delegated were aware of the 
registry they should update.  This really isn't rocket science.

> Of course, that wouldn’t matter because AIUI, without the servers being 
> supplied, hosted, maintained by the RIRs, it would also be fairly invisible 
> as well.

Again, perhaps you should review how the DNS works. Hint: where do referrals to 
the sub-trees of .ARPA come from?

> But keep those ICANN delusions of grandeur coming.

You asked a question. I answered that question accurately. I am unsure why that 
would cause you to assert delusions of grandeur.

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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 
>>> 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 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.

Technically you are right, sort of.

ICANN takes the data supplied by the RIRs and compiles it into zone files which 
are then distributed to servers.

AIUI, most of the servers are hosted and maintained by the RIRs. Most if not 
all of the zone file information is supplied to ICANN by the RIRs.

I stand by my statement to the extent that it is close enough for the purposes 
for which it was made.

Without the RIR, ICANN’s idea of what should go into ip6.arpa and in-addr.arp 
would get pretty stale pretty fast. Of course, that wouldn’t matter because 
AIUI, without the servers being supplied, hosted, maintained by the RIRs, it 
would also be fairly invisible as well. But keep those ICANN delusions of 
grandeur coming.

Owen

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

[Tim Jackson]

>
> 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 things go through their Lucent Lambda
Unite always, it'd turn into 6 hours of finger pointing about timing slips
where they would inform me that both sides (AT and myself) should time
towards them, through attrition we'd always end up with a regular XC.
Awesome times.

--
Tim

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

[Job Witteman]

> 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 more
>> aggresively is what can bring this back to their market, instead of
>> the datacenter-crossconnect market.
>> 
> 
> Did you ever think about *who* brought in all the networks you are able
> to peer with?

And did you ever think *how* successful IXP's brought in these huge amount of 
peers for you?

Let me give you a hint: social engineering, lots of beer, one-on-one options 
during peering forums around the globe where WE travel far beyond our national 
borders to make life easy for our prospect customers because, yes, more peers 
for the same or, even better, lower price is what all of our peers want...

> 
> Seems to be really easy to bash IXPs. Seems to really hard to value what
> IXPs have done for the interconnection industry.

+ 1

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

Job Witteman

job.witte...@ams-ix.net 
http://www.ams-ix.net 

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

[A . L . M . Buxey]

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 itselfeveryone has their viewsand people should feel 
free to
provide their opinion when on the soapbox/presentation stage - as long as its 
within the law
(in some doamins being offensive / testing boundaries is part of the territory 
- eg comedians -
but I wouldnt accept that sort of boundary/officensiveness at an IT/networking 
presentation).
theres an old adage about opinions and everyone having oneits a tru-ism for 
sure - but
whilst he might not have had a full picture the resulting conversation on this 
mailing list
has provided much information. 

Now, just need similar talk on the topic of BGP peering security  ;-)

alan

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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?

[Mark Tinka]

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?

[Thomas Mangin]

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
>> distance is short enough you can insist on a P2P.
>
> 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?

It is how they provide x-connects.

Thomas

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

[Mark Tinka]

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 is short enough you can insist on a P2P.

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?

Mark.

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

[Thomas Mangin]

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 2001 when I 
first became customer).
They normally run their cables through their switches but when the 
distance is short enough you can insist on a P2P.


Thomas

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

[Mark Tinka]

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 free for all where anyone can accidentally
> unplug it or cut it or rummage around in the overhead causing damage
> then free is fine. What I don't accept is variable pricing depending
> on what the xconnect is carrying or what it's for. I don't buy into
> the thought process that an xconnect is more expensive if it's
> carrying 10GbE vs. GigE when they're both SMF.

You won't see this is typical carrier-neutral facilities.

You're more likely to see this in telco- or consortium-owned facilities,
in specific regions that exploit telecommunications requirements to milk
customers.

Mark.

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

[Mark Tinka]

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 ability to join DECIX Frankfurt from NYC and vice 
> versa -- again, this is a bizarre service to be offered, and regular users 
> should not be expected to pay for this. If there is a market for these 
> services at an unsubsidized price, then fine -- but regular members should 
> not be subsidizing this service.

Remote peers have to pay for ports and membership the same way native
peers do.

Why would you think native peers would be subsidizing remote peers?

Mark.

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

[Brandon Ross]

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 their building by charging additional MRC XC
fees to the tenants of the building.


There are some VERY sucessful companies that would strongly disagree with 
you.



When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community effort
to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate will
be MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers,
eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you make the
crossconnects free.


But then why would we want to do that?  If you are correct and doing so 
would raise the value of the real esatate, doesn't that mean that the 
building managers would be able to charge operators a whole lot more than 
they are able to today, in aggregate?  Value based pricing is all the rage 
these days, which is why they charge you so much for cross connects.  Why 
do you think they wouldn't take advantage of higher value real estate by 
charging you more for that, instead?  After all, the free cross connect 
situation would be a great way for the owners to lock you into their real 
estate, then all they have to do is dramatically hike the rates when you 
can no longer leave.


--
Brandon Ross  Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667ICQ:  2269442
 Skype:  brandonross
Schedule a meeting:  http://www.doodle.com/bross

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

[Pete Mundy]

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 the DC 
operator themselves.

I guess perhaps what we have is a bit of a luxury, but it's part of the reason 
we chose that DC over others available in the same vicinity, so it did give 
them a competitive advantage :)

Pete


> On 18/06/2016, at 5:31 am, 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 free for all where anyone can accidentally unplug it or cut it 
> or rummage around in the overhead causing damage then free is fine. What I 
> don't accept is variable pricing depending on what the xconnect is carrying 
> or what it's for. I don't buy into the thought process that an xconnect is 
> more expensive if it's carrying 10GbE vs. GigE when they're both SMF.
> 
> ~Seth

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

[Eric Kuhnke]

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 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 their building by charging additional MRC XC
fees to the tenants of the building.

When in fact the opposite is true, and we need a concerted community effort
to lobby every IX real estate owner with this fact: Your real estate will
be MORE valuable and will attract a greater critical mass of carriers,
eyeball networks, CDNs, huge hosting providers/colo/VM, etc if you make the
crossconnects free. There is a reason why Amazon's HQ was built right
across the street, and one of them is the the ridiculously high density of
carriers in the Westin. They even removed two whole elevators, which is
possible now due to much lower persons/hour elevator traffic and filled the
elevator shafts with riser and cooling.

Not just North American carriers are here, but every noteworthy Asian
network that has capacity in the WA and OR landed submarine cables. And
it's the endpoint to the longhaul DWDM/submarine capacity into all the
non-satellite-dependent communities in Alaska - so logically a lot of
Alaska actually looks like it could be a distant suburb of Seattle, network
topology wise.

The Westin does still have a *few* office space vacancies, but not much in
colo space. Based on my observations over the past 12-14 years they have
slowly been reclaiming the office space by not renewing peoples' office
space leases and converting the space to modern hot aisle/cold aisle
enclosed cabinet space (as on the 4th floor), or conditioned cage space.

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Randy Bush  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 run.  But
> > yeah, $300/m is nuts and that price point has zero relationship to the
> > cost of delivery of the service.
>
> [ i know you know this, but i hope you do not mind being a soapbox ]
>
> back in the day, the seattle westin building (not the hotel, but a 33
> story office building next door) had a smart manager.  he had a riser
> shaft built out and set a very low nrc/mrc for copper and fiber.  given
> the building's copper mmr (meet me room) and a fiber mmr, colos
> exploded, and now the building is mostly racks, vying for being the
> largest carrier hotel in the left coast.  the six was built and expanded
> rapidly in this fertile environment.
>
> no, the westin is not making millions off of cross-connects, but they
> do not have rental vacancies.
>
> due to the shortage, and maybe price (dunno), of westin space, the six
> has been extended to a few other buildings; see diagram at bottom of
> https://www.seattleix.net/topology.  this makes sense to me.  extensions
> to distant cities make less sense to me; but i am an old fogey.
>
> randy
>

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

[Randy Bush]

>> 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
> yeah, $300/m is nuts and that price point has zero relationship to the
> cost of delivery of the service.

[ i know you know this, but i hope you do not mind being a soapbox ]

back in the day, the seattle westin building (not the hotel, but a 33
story office building next door) had a smart manager.  he had a riser
shaft built out and set a very low nrc/mrc for copper and fiber.  given
the building's copper mmr (meet me room) and a fiber mmr, colos
exploded, and now the building is mostly racks, vying for being the
largest carrier hotel in the left coast.  the six was built and expanded
rapidly in this fertile environment.

no, the westin is not making millions off of cross-connects, but they
do not have rental vacancies.

due to the shortage, and maybe price (dunno), of westin space, the six
has been extended to a few other buildings; see diagram at bottom of
https://www.seattleix.net/topology.  this makes sense to me.  extensions
to distant cities make less sense to me; but i am an old fogey.

randy

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

[Daniel Golding]

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!).

Seems that, whether you agree with Dave or not, it was successful. It also
seems that the IXP operators who came under the most criticism have reacted
with a lot of professionalism and maturity. Other IXP operators have
reacted pretty poorly, which is ironic.

Dan

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

[Arnold Nipper]

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 market.
> 

Did you ever think about *who* brought in all the networks you are able
to peer with?

Seems to be really easy to bash IXPs. Seems to really hard to value what
IXPs have done for the interconnection industry.


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?

[Seth Mattinen]

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 _every fiber_ (which doesn't happen)
the colo still makes money.


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 free for all where anyone can accidentally 
unplug it or cut it or rummage around in the overhead causing damage 
then free is fine. What I don't accept is variable pricing depending on 
what the xconnect is carrying or what it's for. I don't buy into the 
thought process that an xconnect is more expensive if it's carrying 
10GbE vs. GigE when they're both SMF.


~Seth

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

[Dave Temkin]

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 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 run.  But yeah,
> $300/m is nuts and that price point has zero relationship to the cost of
> delivery of the service.
>
> Nick
>
>

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

[David Conrad]

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 the 
>> last ARIN meeting.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> 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.

Regards,
-drc
(speaking only for myself)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Nick Hilliard]

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 run.  But yeah,
$300/m is nuts and that price point has zero relationship to the cost of
delivery of the service.

Nick

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

[Leo Bicknell]

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


pgpFz1LjS4KJJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

> 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, that you might want to connect directly to.

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.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 17 Jun 2016, at 14:48, Leo Bicknell  wrote:
> 
> 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’ 
>> location.
> 
> It moves the monopoly to the IXP operator!
> 
> When everyone is in one facility (or at least building) it is
> typically easy to get low priced (although maybe not low enough,
> see other posts in this thread) cross connects.  It's common to see
> a pair of public peers fill up a significant part of their port,
> and then move to a private peering model getting off the IXP and
> onto glass directly.
> 
> When the IXP is distributed, this becomes glass between buildings,
> often requiring yet another supplier as well.  The MRCs are higher
> making the justification to move off harder.  What happens is rather
> than moving off to glass, they have to buy faster/more ports from
> the IXP and move the traffic over the IXP.
> 
> The IXP becomes the go-to monopoly as a result.
> 
> Now, perhaps IXP's are more benevolent than data center opertors,
> and this is a good trade.  I think one thing the presentation was
> asking people to do was step back, look at the situation, and
> reevaluate that particular tradeoff.
> 
> -- 
> Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

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

[Leo Bicknell]

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’ 
> location.

It moves the monopoly to the IXP operator!

When everyone is in one facility (or at least building) it is
typically easy to get low priced (although maybe not low enough,
see other posts in this thread) cross connects.  It's common to see
a pair of public peers fill up a significant part of their port,
and then move to a private peering model getting off the IXP and
onto glass directly.

When the IXP is distributed, this becomes glass between buildings,
often requiring yet another supplier as well.  The MRCs are higher
making the justification to move off harder.  What happens is rather
than moving off to glass, they have to buy faster/more ports from
the IXP and move the traffic over the IXP.

The IXP becomes the go-to monopoly as a result.

Now, perhaps IXP's are more benevolent than data center opertors,
and this is a good trade.  I think one thing the presentation was
asking people to do was step back, look at the situation, and
reevaluate that particular tradeoff.

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


pgp34MlQA3jBY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Dave Temkin]

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 organizations hosting
a forum" when in reality, they are quite different and it may not be all
that easy to figure how/why (by Nurani's own admission, most of that is not
easy to find on their website).

[image: Inline image 1]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> 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 Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

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

[Mike Hammett]

I think the popularity of the donation-based IX largely a violent reaction to 
the over-priced major IX operators in the US. People didn't like what was 
happening, so went to the polar opposite. 




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



Midwest Internet 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 - 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 operate in, other than three 
out of the four that you mentioned; none of the member-owned 
organisations in the region are making large profits or in most cases 
anything more than marginal profits, and all of them have lower port 
costs. Also, none of their activities suggest that their marketing 
budgets are large. These, I think, were the main points of contention 
you were concerned about. 

> 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. 

We're not talking about relative importance; we're talking about whether 
the problems you identified with the four IXPs named in your talk are 
representative of problems with the larger IXP community. I cannot find 
evidence that they are, at least not in the areas that you identified as 
problems. 

> Netnod runs a dns root server 
> system (i.root-servers.net <http://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. 

All root operators do this for no charge, but at substantial cost. 

Running a root dns server system is one of the things what Netnod does 
because that's one of the things that the organisation is chartered to do. 

> 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. 

Oh sure, but this is a matter that you need to take up with your 
financial people. I have no doubt that Netflix employs smart financial 
people, and that their decisions are the right thing for Netflix. 

IXPs are going to operate in their local currency and they cannot be 
held responsible for international currency fluctuations. From this 
respect, I don't think it's useful to bring this up in a critical 
context because it's not something that they can influence in any way 
whatever. 

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

This edges into one of the things that is crucial to this discussion, 
and it was unfortunate that it wasn't explored more. The crux is that 
there is a substantial cultural difference between how US people view 
IXPs and how european people view IXPs. 

As far as I can tell there are, for the most part, two types of IXPs in 
the US: commercial and co-operative. How they differ from european IXPs 
is that the commercials are almost all run by the data centres and are 
tied to those data centres. Most if not all of the co-operative IXPs 
are to some degree or other financed by donations or sponsorship and the 
donation types are: cash, equipment and manpower. 

In europe, there are three types of IXP: commercial, member based and 
non-member, non-profit. Many of the commercial IXPs are not owned by 
the data centres (e.g. NL-IX, ECIX, etc). The member-owned IXPs are 
answerable fully to their membership (e.g. LINX, INEX), and the 
non-member, non-profit IXPs (Netnod, VIX, etc) provide a service to the 
community as they see fit, but are not required to answer to the 
organisations who use them for peering services, even if they are likely 
to listen to what those organisations say. 

Crucially, almost all of the european non-profit IXPs are 100% 
self-funded without donations, sponsorship or subsidisation of manpower. 
They have offices, 

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

[Mike Hammett]

I think a similar point was made at NANOG. A distributed IX will let the market 
dictate that. Places that are better for people to operate in will see a rise 
in customers and places that aren't won't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://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: Thursday, June 16, 2016 6:17:51 PM 
Subject: 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 fees? 

IMHO we should be, in the spirit of: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party 

Assuming the existence of overhead fiber trays throughput, when you 
consider the actual cost of a two strand XC between two cages in the same 
facility: 

30 meter SC-SC duplex 9/125 G.657.A1 cable: $11 

There should be a community effort to lobby facility managers and colo/IX 
real estate management that the value of their facility will be greater if 
XCs are free or nearly free, resulting in higher occupancy and a greater 
critical mass of carriers, rather than trying to extract revenue from the 
tenants by $300/mo MRC per fiber pair between two racks. 



On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Phil Rosenthal <p...@isprime.com> wrote: 

> 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 not quite as fast as my 
> transit and switch/router ports, and this does lead to some value 
> questions. Dave is right to ask them. 
> 
> 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 fees? 
> 
> 2) Exotic features -- Pvlan, L2VPN, L3VPN have absolutely no purpose on an 
> exchange. If it could be done 'free' with commodity hardware, then fine -- 
> but if it translates to requiring Big Expensive Routers instead of a 
> cheaper but fast switch, this should translate to higher pricing for the 
> customers requiring these exotic features -- not the customers who just 
> want a big L2 vlan. 
> 
> 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 ability to join DECIX Frankfurt from NYC and vice 
> versa -- again, this is a bizarre service to be offered, and regular users 
> should not be expected to pay for this. If there is a market for these 
> services at an unsubsidized price, then fine -- but regular members should 
> not be subsidizing this service. 
> 
> 4) sFlow -- I'm not sure why this is even really a topic. Commodity 
> hardware does have sFlow capability, and FLIX demonstrates this well. With 
> that said, for us, it is of extremely limited value. We might check these 
> graphs to validate measurements of our internal netflow/sflow graphing 
> systems, but generally, I look at the graphs generated by my exchange 
> vendors less than once per year per exchange. I am honestly not even sure 
> if SIX offers this service, as I never had a reason to check. 
> 
> 5) Marketting vs Outreach: These things are honestly basically the same 
> thing, mostly separated by the question of "is it good marketing or not". I 
> like having more members at the exchanges I am a member of. If it 
> translates to an additional 3% per year to have an additional 5% of traffic 
> to new members, I am fine with this. If it translates to an extra 50% of 
> cost for 5% of additional traffic, I am not fine with it. 
> 
> Finally -- there is nothing wrong with asking questions. If you are an 
> exchange company and you can defend your prices for what you offer, then 
> there is no problem. If you are an exchange and are mostly just hoping 
> nobody asks the questions because you won't have any good answers -- well, 
> I think this is exactly why Dave asked the question. 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> -Phil Rosenthal 
> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Adam

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

[Will Hargrave]

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 information from our membership base who reaffirm 
their desire for a multi-site approach. They (and you) are the people 
with the data, as they are the people buying these services.


The origin of these designs was probably not out of a desire for 
diversity to promote competition, but actually because existing 
datacentres were full.
Nevertheless, a datacentre which is full, incompetently run, or too 
expensive all have something in common - to my members they are useless.



I made the point that distributed IX's don't really
impact power or space costs in data centers. I can provide actual data 
on

this, if you would like.


What about crossconnect prices?

It is interesting you have data that indicates that this policy could be 
futile, because the belief in this principle is almost axiomatic in 
our/my community.

Did we waste time and money spanning metros with IXs?

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

[Fredrik Korsbäck]

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 difference being that the he.net port provides much more value and
> besides also provides indirect one-step-away peering with everyone on Comix.
> 
> So from my perspective it is clear that Netnod has a pricing problem here.
> Especially for the lower speeds (10G). There is also a value problem
> because the only Comix peer that moves a lot of traffic to us is Akamai,
> and they promised that we could peer directly skipping the middleman.
> 
> We are based in Copenhagen. The Netnod IX in Stockholm would provide a lot
> more value, but to get there we have to add the cost for transport and
> after doing that, the comparison to the 10G he.net transit is just silly.
> 
> Here is an opinion: If the IX pricing is comparable to transit, the service
> needs to be too. Netnod will need to connect the five (I think there are
> five) Netnod IX'es into one big domain. I am meeting with NL-IX next week
> and as I understand it, that is exactly what they did - we will probably
> buy NL-IX and skip Netnod for this single reason.
> 
> I feel that smaller providers are being let down by the IX community at
> this point. The value of "smaller" is going to get larger if the IX
> community does not move with the transit providers. We want to take part
> but there is a limit of how much over price you can sign onto and keep your
> job.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur

For me (and middle-sized non-profit ISP) this is something that will eventually 
solve itself, because of people tend to vote with the wallets.

As of now (looking at job's excellent spreadsheet) we can see that regular 
transit is cheaper or atleast on-par with 6-8 of the more expensive IXPs in 
that spreadsheet. We can use hurricane-electrics longlasting google-ad that 
promises $0.26/Mbps on a 10G as a baseline, there is cheaper and much more 
expensive bits to be had naturally but for the sake of argument. While transit 
is almost always a
better thing then connecting a IXP if cheap bits is of your prime concern, 
there is still quality to gain by being able to take care of some of the 
traffic yourself over an IXP. But this also has a tippingpoint in terms of 
price.

The other battle IXPs needs to take into consideration is the price of PNI´s 
nowadays. It is MUCH easier to get really good value from private interconnects 
seeing as most operators has more traffic to less destinations then what we had 
a few years back, and $BIGCLOUD is usually very forthcoming into helping out 
with this since the bits is the product they sell, not the transport of the 
bits.

A 10G port at DECIX Frankfurt is 22800EUR/year. For 22800/year you can go out 
in the market today, buy a jericho-switch which does internet-scale tables and 
BGP and has buffers and all the stuff you need for a peering-edge and will get 
1T worth of faceplate connectors, support for that same switch for about three 
years and you still has some change left for icecream. Thats alot of possible 
PNI´s.
Then we need to factor in costs of crossconnects - if you are in a 
$BIGNAMEDATACENTER  will probably have to pay anything between 19 - 300 
EURO/month for said crossconnect (or the other company has to, or you split 
it). If you are in $NOTSOBIGNAMEDATACENTER you can perhaps pull the patch 
yourself and only pay the CAPEX of 11EUR of buying the patch so this varies 
heavily.

What i do when i think about these things is to produce a matrix where the cost 
of the IXP in that region is measured towards a full TCO of a PNI, factoring in 
what a 10G/100G port costs in terms of buying hardware and then all the OPEX 
surrounding it in terms of 
hardwaresupport/xconns/powerconsumtion/patching/documentation of patching etc 
etc.

For me - PNIs make economical sense if i can shave of 313Mbit/s of my IXP 
(cheap DC / high IXP cost) in the lowside, and about 3.67Gbit/s on the highside 
(expensive DC / cheap IX). And this is with quite high port CAPEX (juniper mx), 
when and if peering-edge is being produced in something like a Jericho-box i 
expect these requirements will drop to the floor.

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 market.

-- 
hugge

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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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 exist, how would you go about guaranteeing unique registered GUA 
blocks and ASNs? Who would operate whois and in-addr.arpa, ip6.arpa?

As to Jamaica, as you point out, it’s in the ARIN region. We really have two 
choices there… One, we can avoid the caribbean and do a disservice to our 
community members there, or, two, we can occasionally (usually about once out 
of every 4 meetings) meet in the Caribbean.

Do you really think that our members in the Caribbean should be excluded from 
having the possibility of a local meeting simply because they happen to live in 
a popular vacation spot?

If you don’t think that having the meeting in the Caribbean serves our 
Caribbean community members, you’re flat out wrong. There were many attendees 
present from the Caribbean region who have not been able (either for financial, 
Visa, or other reasons) to attend our meetings in the US and Canada.

While you might want to make the argument against holding the meeting at a 
resort destination, the reality is that there alternatives in the Caribbean 
region that can accommodate a meeting and the number of hotel rooms needed by a 
group our size are few and far between. Most of the facilities that have 
adequate facilities ARE resorts.

> 
> I am not alone. Have a look at Ren's comments from
> 
> http://research.dyn.com/2006/02/lovely-peering-cruise-on-lake/ 
> 
> 
> Posted here:
> "
> The Peering Forum is more for peer & IX information distribution and contact 
> refresh across a multi-continent body of participants than it is for initial 
> trial concerns. The invite only nature implies the attendees are actively 
> peering at one or more of the IXs sponsoring portions of the Forum. Many of 
> us, hand raised here, are taking vacation time, covering flights, upgraded 
> cabins, etc. to help remove the conflict of interest concerns. It is 
> unfortunate there is not a link to the agenda as it is jam packed with useful 
> peering focused presentations and more than qualifies this as a business 
> need. Last year dozens of participants interacted for the first time and I’m 
> looking forward to similar introductions later this month. Putting a face to 
> the name helps significantly in this very relationship based role which has 
> more to do with international relations than enable.”

What you are leaving out here is that IIRC, Ren was one of the people behind 
the original idea of having things like Peering Cruises. Frankly, if you want 
to have a concentrated focused meeting, a cruise can be a very cost-effective 
approach, where you can cover meeting rooms, hotel rooms, meals, etc. for less 
per person than the cost of a hotel room in some cities in the US that I 
suspect you’d consider perfectly acceptable. (NYC, ORD, SFO, SJC, LAX to name 
just a few)

> I am not willing to fork over my pto or personal cash to "remove the conflict 
> of interest" . I'd rather buy transit. 

I’m not sure what this supposed COI is.

> And, i am also not willing to spend my corp money with dec-ix or others to 
> send my competitors on a cruise. Unless …

Well… I’m unaware of DE-CIX providing cruises at their expense, so I’m not sure 
where that comes from. Perhaps I missed out somewhere. Wouldn’t surprise me.

> why cant this just be business? 

Why can’t it be just business on a cruise? Who says that business has to be a 
windowless conference room in a city with little or no appeal to tourists?

> That said, i have never been on a peering cruise and all my peering needs are 
> met with peeringdb and email. So it is just business for me, and no i am not 
> going to spend money at an IX that does not see things the way i do. 

I’m happy for you, but you aren’t exactly what I would call a major backbone. 
I’m pretty sure you have to buy transit from at least one or two major 
backbones to deal with your networking needs. Are you so certain that those 
major backbones that you pay didn’t need in person meetings to get some of 
their peering arrangements done? Are you so sure that there are not significant 
swaths of internet infrastructure (including much of the state of the art in 
IXPs today) that didn’t develop and evolve largely in these collaborative 
environments?

You have the luxury of using the tools that others have built to meet your 
peering needs. You talk about your use of peeringdb… I’m pretty sure that the 
origin of peeringdb can be traced back to people talking together at some of 
these fora that you consider non-business for reasons passing understanding.

This isn’t an all-business focus question or even a miserly question.

It’s purely an optics question. If 

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

[Matthew Petach]

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 ports and cross connects from
members into the IXP that produce the bandwidth,
and that would be the case even if the IXP were
removed from the picture and the ports were
cross-connected back-to-back.

(I suppose if an IXP switch fabric were compromised,
someone could use it to generate traffic that did not
originate from any member port, but that would be
a very unusual circumstance indeed...)

Thanks!

Matt

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?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

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

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 benefits vs. LINX and unless you read the
letters of incorporation, you may not know that.


Are you accusing Netnod of using marketing (and lack of transparancy) to 
try to fool people into believing it is a member based organisation?


I've read what you wrote above 5 times now, and it sure seems to me that 
you do.


If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing that. 
If you're not, please do share what you actually meant.


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

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

[Baldur Norddahl]

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 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 benefits vs. LINX and unless you read the
> letters of incorporation, you may not know that.
>
>
Ok, customer. Actually I don't care. I will evaluate the business value no
matter who owns it and I will vote with my dollars/euros/kroner.

Yes it would be nice if we had a true self owned entity that would help
people peer the most cost effective way and only that. Apparently they have
something like it in Seattle. But not in my part of the world, hence I view
them all as purely commercial entities. I need a good balance of price and
quality and will buy from whoever comes with the best business proposal.

Regards,

Baldur

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

[Dave Temkin]

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 member-mutual
IXPs, commercial, and non-profit IXPs. Being a "member" of NetNod provides
you with a very different set of benefits vs. LINX and unless you read the
letters of incorporation, you may not know that.

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

[Daniel Golding]

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 current seven datacentres, across four different operators. London
> would not be the great city of interconnection it is without the east
> London cluster of DCs from different operators.
>
>
Of course, that's not what I said, but only people who were present
actually know that. 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 made the point that distributed IX's don't really
impact power or space costs in data centers. I can provide actual data on
this, if you would like.

Dan



> {snip}
>
>
> Will
>

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

[Nick Hilliard]

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 operate in, other than three
out of the four that you mentioned; none of the member-owned
organisations in the region are making large profits or in most cases
anything more than marginal profits, and all of them have lower port
costs.  Also, none of their activities suggest that their marketing
budgets are large.  These, I think, were the main points of contention
you were concerned about.

> 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.

We're not talking about relative importance; we're talking about whether
the problems you identified with the four IXPs named in your talk are
representative of problems with the larger IXP community.  I cannot find
evidence that they are, at least not in the areas that you identified as
problems.

> 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.

All root operators do this for no charge, but at substantial cost.

Running a root dns server system is one of the things what Netnod does
because that's one of the things that the organisation is chartered to do.

> 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.

Oh sure, but this is a matter that you need to take up with your
financial people.  I have no doubt that Netflix employs smart financial
people, and that their decisions are the right thing for Netflix.

IXPs are going to operate in their local currency and they cannot be
held responsible for international currency fluctuations.  From this
respect, I don't think it's useful to bring this up in a critical
context because it's not something that they can influence in any way
whatever.

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

This edges into one of the things that is crucial to this discussion,
and it was unfortunate that it wasn't explored more.  The crux is that
there is a substantial cultural difference between how US people view
IXPs and how european people view IXPs.

As far as I can tell there are, for the most part, two types of IXPs in
the US: commercial and co-operative.  How they differ from european IXPs
is that the commercials are almost all run by the data centres and are
tied to those data centres.  Most if not all of the co-operative IXPs
are to some degree or other financed by donations or sponsorship and the
donation types are: cash, equipment and manpower.

In europe, there are three types of IXP: commercial, member based and
non-member, non-profit.  Many of the commercial IXPs are not owned by
the data centres (e.g. NL-IX, ECIX, etc).  The member-owned IXPs are
answerable fully to their membership (e.g. LINX, INEX), and the
non-member, non-profit IXPs (Netnod, VIX, etc) provide a service to the
community as they see fit, but are not required to answer to the
organisations who use them for peering services, even if they are likely
to listen to what those organisations say.

Crucially, almost all of the european non-profit IXPs are 100%
self-funded without donations, sponsorship or subsidisation of manpower.
 They have offices, admin people, support staff and everything else that
a normal business has.  IXP staff are paid market rates because if you
don't do this, they walk.

They do this because this having a dependable income source ensures long
term stability and their members / customers / peering participants need
to know that the organisation that supports their business is built on a
sound structural foundation.  This matters to them and they are prepared
to pay for it.

The flip side of it is that European non-profit IXPs are, by design,
more expensive than US non-profit IXPs and there are almost no free /
zero-recurrent-cost IXPs in the region.

So I would question comparing a european IXP with e.g. SIX or
CommunityIX and would suggest that this is a case of 

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

[Eric Kuhnke]

> 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 fees?

IMHO we should be, in the spirit of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_Is_Too_Damn_High_Party

Assuming the existence of overhead fiber trays throughput, when you
consider the actual cost of a two strand XC between two cages in the same
facility:

30 meter SC-SC duplex 9/125 G.657.A1 cable: $11

There should be a community effort to lobby facility managers and colo/IX
real estate management that the value of their facility will be greater if
XCs are free or nearly free, resulting in higher occupancy and a greater
critical mass of carriers, rather than trying to extract revenue from the
tenants by $300/mo MRC per fiber pair between two racks.



On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Phil Rosenthal  wrote:

> 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 not quite as fast as my
> transit and switch/router ports, and this does lead to some value
> questions. Dave is right to ask them.
>
> 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 fees?
>
> 2) Exotic features -- Pvlan, L2VPN, L3VPN have absolutely no purpose on an
> exchange. If it could be done 'free' with commodity hardware, then fine --
> but if it translates to requiring Big Expensive Routers instead of a
> cheaper but fast switch, this should translate to higher pricing for the
> customers requiring these exotic features -- not the customers who just
> want a big L2 vlan.
>
> 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 ability to join DECIX Frankfurt from NYC and vice
> versa -- again, this is a bizarre service to be offered, and regular users
> should not be expected to pay for this. If there is a market for these
> services at an unsubsidized price, then fine -- but regular members should
> not be subsidizing this service.
>
> 4) sFlow -- I'm not sure why this is even really a topic. Commodity
> hardware does have sFlow capability, and FLIX demonstrates this well. With
> that said, for us, it is of extremely limited value. We might check these
> graphs to validate measurements of our internal netflow/sflow graphing
> systems, but generally, I look at the graphs generated by my exchange
> vendors less than once per year per exchange. I am honestly not even sure
> if SIX offers this service, as I never had a reason to check.
>
> 5) Marketting vs Outreach: These things are honestly basically the same
> thing, mostly separated by the question of "is it good marketing or not". I
> like having more members at the exchanges I am a member of. If it
> translates to an additional 3% per year to have an additional 5% of traffic
> to new members, I am fine with this.  If it translates to an extra 50% of
> cost for 5% of additional traffic, I am not fine with it.
>
> Finally -- there is nothing wrong with asking questions. If you are an
> exchange company and you can defend your prices for what you offer, then
> there is no problem.  If you are an exchange and are mostly just hoping
> nobody asks the questions because you won't have any good answers -- well,
> I think this is exactly why Dave asked the question.
>
> Best Regards,
> -Phil Rosenthal
> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:
> >
> > 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 plethora of open
> > sourced tools, folk like Kentik have broken into that market with
> > rationally priced commercial alternatives.  Likewise, one might argue
> > that offering layer-2 and layer-3 (!) VPNs is at best non-essential,
> > and a distraction that fuels purchasing very expensive hardware, and
> > at worse competitive with customers.
> >
> > On the other hand, building out a metro topology to cover all relevant
> > carrier hotels, with reasonable path diversity, is absolutely table
> > stakes.  

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

[Baldur Norddahl]

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 and
besides also provides indirect one-step-away peering with everyone on Comix.

So from my perspective it is clear that Netnod has a pricing problem here.
Especially for the lower speeds (10G). There is also a value problem
because the only Comix peer that moves a lot of traffic to us is Akamai,
and they promised that we could peer directly skipping the middleman.

We are based in Copenhagen. The Netnod IX in Stockholm would provide a lot
more value, but to get there we have to add the cost for transport and
after doing that, the comparison to the 10G he.net transit is just silly.

Here is an opinion: If the IX pricing is comparable to transit, the service
needs to be too. Netnod will need to connect the five (I think there are
five) Netnod IX'es into one big domain. I am meeting with NL-IX next week
and as I understand it, that is exactly what they did - we will probably
buy NL-IX and skip Netnod for this single reason.

I feel that smaller providers are being let down by the IX community at
this point. The value of "smaller" is going to get larger if the IX
community does not move with the transit providers. We want to take part
but there is a limit of how much over price you can sign onto and keep your
job.

Regards,

Baldur






On 16 June 2016 at 15:52, Nurani Nimpuno  wrote:

> 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 

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

[Eric Kuhnke]

 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 location and which real estate investment
company/datacenter developer happens to own a particular property.

There's to-remain-unnamed colo & power providers who like to get people
into a facility with cheap rack & power and then charge hundreds of dollars
per month per fiber pair for a regular 9/125 XC between two racks or cages
in the same facility.

Others where the cost is $0 monthly and you can pull your own fiber through
the overhead trays to establish PNI. Others where you pay monthly rent for
your own 144-strand 4U patch panel in a fiber MMR but the XCs between
panels are $0/MRC.

Also worth knowing for comparison to the spreadsheet in #3 below: To what
extent are intra-facility XC costs available without NDAs to publish and
share? Which colo facilities consider NRCs and MRCs for fiber XCs to be
proprietary information?


3 -
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit#gid=0

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

[Phil Rosenthal]

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 not quite as fast as my transit 
and switch/router ports, and this does lead to some value questions. Dave is 
right to ask them.

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 fees?

2) Exotic features -- Pvlan, L2VPN, L3VPN have absolutely no purpose on an 
exchange. If it could be done 'free' with commodity hardware, then fine -- but 
if it translates to requiring Big Expensive Routers instead of a cheaper but 
fast switch, this should translate to higher pricing for the customers 
requiring these exotic features -- not the customers who just want a big L2 
vlan.

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 ability to join DECIX Frankfurt from NYC and vice versa -- again, this is a 
bizarre service to be offered, and regular users should not be expected to pay 
for this. If there is a market for these services at an unsubsidized price, 
then fine -- but regular members should not be subsidizing this service.

4) sFlow -- I'm not sure why this is even really a topic. Commodity hardware 
does have sFlow capability, and FLIX demonstrates this well. With that said, 
for us, it is of extremely limited value. We might check these graphs to 
validate measurements of our internal netflow/sflow graphing systems, but 
generally, I look at the graphs generated by my exchange vendors less than once 
per year per exchange. I am honestly not even sure if SIX offers this service, 
as I never had a reason to check.

5) Marketting vs Outreach: These things are honestly basically the same thing, 
mostly separated by the question of "is it good marketing or not". I like 
having more members at the exchanges I am a member of. If it translates to an 
additional 3% per year to have an additional 5% of traffic to new members, I am 
fine with this.  If it translates to an extra 50% of cost for 5% of additional 
traffic, I am not fine with it.

Finally -- there is nothing wrong with asking questions. If you are an exchange 
company and you can defend your prices for what you offer, then there is no 
problem.  If you are an exchange and are mostly just hoping nobody asks the 
questions because you won't have any good answers -- well, I think this is 
exactly why Dave asked the question.

Best Regards,
-Phil Rosenthal
> On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:
> 
> 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 plethora of open
> sourced tools, folk like Kentik have broken into that market with
> rationally priced commercial alternatives.  Likewise, one might argue
> that offering layer-2 and layer-3 (!) VPNs is at best non-essential,
> and a distraction that fuels purchasing very expensive hardware, and
> at worse competitive with customers.
> 
> On the other hand, building out a metro topology to cover all relevant
> carrier hotels, with reasonable path diversity, is absolutely table
> stakes.  And outreach is a great function, *when* it nets unique new
> participants.  To cite a recent example, the various R networks and
> smaller broadband and mobile providers showing up here in the US, due
> to excellent efforts by the NYIIX and DE-CIX teams.
> 
> At the end of the day, IXP peering must be significantly cheaper than
> transit alternatives, many of which are priced based on utilization
> (as opposed to port capacity).  We can dance around this point all we
> want, but absent a change in trajectory, I worry some IXPs will
> ultimately price themselves out of the market, and all the gold-plated
> features in the world won't satiate those making purchasing decisions.
> 
> $0.02,
> -a
> 
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Niels Bakker 

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

[Job Snijders]

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 view this differently: an IXP that does not grow, still provides value
to the existing members/customers. The value is not growth itself, just
like the amount of connected networks is not a metric for value, but a
metric for the potential of value.

The value an IXP brings can be defined as the delta between what it
would cost to 'do it yourself' and run everything over private peering
and using a public internet exchange. And this definition of value is
underlined by the fact that a "public to private" lifecycle exists. 

> 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.

This is an admirable quality. I believe an IXP is most successful when
it presents a level playing field. Hope you never change this :)

Kind regards,

Job

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 

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

[Martin Hannigan]

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 defined as good
outreach? If it is, thats certainly up to them.

Btw, have you thanked your local US branded euro IXP? They created market
pressures that saved many of us a Brinks truck full of cash by increasing
competitiveness. A lot of us owe them thanks and support for doing
good.  If you do, grab Job, John, Henk, Pauline, Arnold or Andreas and give
them a big COGS crushing hug. Go easy on Pauline, less crush please.

Best,

Marty

On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal  wrote:

> 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 don't need/want it.
> >
> > sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function.
>
> Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member
> with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they
> don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's
> possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats.
>
> We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok,
> remote peering is a different case).
>
> If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port
> fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need
> it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible.
>
> Best Regards,
> Zbynek
>

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

[Mike Hammett]

I think that's a very limited mindset. 




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



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


- Original Message -

From: "Zbyněk Pospíchal" <zby...@dialtelecom.cz> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
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 them if they have to pay for these 
>> features separately? 
>> 
>> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for 
>> networks who don't need/want it. 
> 
> sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. 

Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member 
with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they 
don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's 
possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats. 

We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok, 
remote peering is a different case). 

If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port 
fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need 
it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible. 

Best Regards, 
Zbynek 

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

[Zbyněk Pospíchal]

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 don't need/want it.
> 
> sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. 

Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member
with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they
don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's
possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats.

We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok,
remote peering is a different case).

If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port
fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need
it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible.

Best Regards,
Zbynek

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

[Adam Rothschild]

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 plethora of open
sourced tools, folk like Kentik have broken into that market with
rationally priced commercial alternatives.  Likewise, one might argue
that offering layer-2 and layer-3 (!) VPNs is at best non-essential,
and a distraction that fuels purchasing very expensive hardware, and
at worse competitive with customers.

On the other hand, building out a metro topology to cover all relevant
carrier hotels, with reasonable path diversity, is absolutely table
stakes.  And outreach is a great function, *when* it nets unique new
participants.  To cite a recent example, the various R networks and
smaller broadband and mobile providers showing up here in the US, due
to excellent efforts by the NYIIX and DE-CIX teams.

At the end of the day, IXP peering must be significantly cheaper than
transit alternatives, many of which are priced based on utilization
(as opposed to port capacity).  We can dance around this point all we
want, but absent a change in trajectory, I worry some IXPs will
ultimately price themselves out of the market, and all the gold-plated
features in the world won't satiate those making purchasing decisions.

$0.02,
-a

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Niels Bakker 

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

[Will Hargrave]

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 nice simple ethernet switch. Add some 
nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a 
separate switch :)


(I spoke on this topic in the session - I regret insufficiently 
coherently, but I’ll try again)



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’ 
location.


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 current seven datacentres, across four different operators. London 
would not be the great city of interconnection it is without the east 
London cluster of DCs from different operators.


We have had a fair few single site IXs in London - e.g. the now defunct 
RBEIX, Sovex, Meriex. I don’t think it is a viable model for an IXP in 
a well-developed market.



Then there is another concern. What’s the plan for SIX if the Westin 
Building colo is sold to someone less benevolent and co-operative? I am 
really pleased their current arrangement seems to work well for SIX, its 
members and datacentre partners. I think our own members would be less 
comfortable with that level of risk.



Will

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

[Niels Bakker]

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 logistics required are WHY they don't build
large L2 networks.  SMITH: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. DALE: Don't
do that.


Wait.  I thought vijay "your solution doesn't scale" gill was a hero
of the NANOG community, but now you're telling me that actually
scaling up is a sin?



sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function.  Neither is remote peering.

by 'remote peering' do you mean an exchange essentially selling transit?


I mean the common practice of connecting via a L2 pseudowire with 
a provider that has an arrangement with the IXP to do so, rather than 
putting a router in a datacenter the IXP is in and then connecting to 
that router  with possibly the same provider to the rest of your network.
Mikael Abrahamsson probably meant the same thing when he used the term 
two mails upthread.



-- Niels.

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

[Randy Bush]

> 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.  SMITH: Doctor, it hurts when I do this. DALE: Don't
do that.

> sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function.  Neither is remote peering.

by 'remote peering' do you mean an exchange essentially selling transit?

randy

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

[Niels Bakker]

* 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 peering, more hand-holding when 
connecting etc.


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 don't need/want it.


sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function.  Neither is remote peering.  
The others Mikael mentioned are debatable at worst but you'd be 
telling the membership what they really want rather than listening 
to them saying what they want.


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.



-- Niels.

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

[Tom Hill]

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 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.

I wasn't sure if you were talking on behalf of Netflix either. Mainly
because the first thing you said at the Nanog presentation was to
correct everyone on your title at Netflix. ;)

Rather than alluding to it, letting everyone come to their own
conclusion, you'd have been better off just saying it outright.

Definitely do not be surprised when anyone's confused as to this fact,
however.

-- 
Tom

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

[Dave Temkin]

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 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.

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

[Ca By]

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
> > policy And they do what members want.
>
> I don’t speak for the organization or even for the Advisory Council, but I
> can
> tell you that we get more focused community input and participation during
> those
> face to face meetings than we do during the rest of the year.
>
> Like it or not, when trying to get interactive participation from more
> than 5 or so people,
> there’s really no useful substitute for the face-to-face meeting. Every
> existing
> alternative is less useful and comes with significant drawbacks.
>
> So, yes, I believe ARIN does what the members want, but more importantly, I
> believe that the face to face meetings are a useful mechanism to preserve
> the
> bottom up nature of the policy development process.
>
> > 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 suppose you can joke about anything you want. Personally, I’ve never
> been on a
> peering cruise, but I will say that it’s a pretty classic fallacy to
> discount the
> value of the social times at conferences. In fact, I find those times to
> often
> be when most of the real work gets done and when most of the benefit of
> getting
> everyone together in the same place is realized.
>
> While NANOG puts on a good technical program, my company gets far more
> benefit from
> the time I spend meeting with network partners, suppliers, and potential
> customers
> during the conference than they will ever see from my time in the
> sessions. So much
> so that I generally attend the sessions on an as-available basis  when I’m
> not able
> to schedule a more useful meeting. There are, of course exceptions. Some
> of the
> sessions (maybe 3-4 per conference) are worth holding my time open to
> attend, but
> most are not.
>
> This does not mean that I don’t consider NANOG valuable, just that the
> primary value
> is in the ability to meet with other attendees rather than directly in the
> technical
> program itself.
>
> I don’t mean this to be insulting to NANOG. I think the PC generally does
> a fine job
> of putting on a good conference with great content. Most importantly, it’s
> good enough
> that it draws in a large selection of people I need/want to meet with in a
> concentrated
> time frame in a single location.
>
> Peering fora, peering cruises, and the like have a similar effect.
>
> So scoff all you want, but if you imagine that these events are silly
> junkets where
> nothing gets accomplished, then you are seriously underestimating this
> community, IMHO.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
Owen,

I agree with most of what you are saying. I'll digress on if arin needs to
meet or exist.

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.

I am not alone. Have a look at Ren's comments from

http://research.dyn.com/2006/02/lovely-peering-cruise-on-lake/

Posted here:
"
The Peering Forum is more for peer & IX information distribution and
contact refresh across a multi-continent body of participants than it is
for initial trial concerns. The invite only nature implies the attendees
are actively peering at one or more of the IXs sponsoring portions of the
Forum. Many of us, hand raised here, are taking vacation time, covering
flights, upgraded cabins, etc. to help remove the conflict of interest
concerns. It is unfortunate there is not a link to the agenda as it is jam
packed with useful peering focused presentations and more than qualifies
this as a business need. Last year dozens of participants interacted for
the first time and I’m looking forward to similar introductions later this
month. Putting a face to the name helps significantly in this very
relationship based role which has more to do with international relations
than enable."

I am not willing to fork over my pto or personal cash to "remove the
conflict of interest" . I'd rather buy transit.

And, i am also not willing to spend my corp money with dec-ix or others to
send my competitors on a cruise. Unless ...

why cant this just be business?

That said, i have never been on a peering cruise and all my peering needs
are met with peeringdb and email. So it is just business for me, and no i
am not going to spend money at an IX that does not see things the way i do.

CB

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

[Zbyněk Pospíchal]

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 them if they have to pay for these features
separately?

Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for
networks who don't need/want it.

Best Regards,
Zbynek

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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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 or even for the Advisory Council, but I can
tell you that we get more focused community input and participation during those
face to face meetings than we do during the rest of the year.

Like it or not, when trying to get interactive participation from more than 5 
or so people,
there’s really no useful substitute for the face-to-face meeting. Every existing
alternative is less useful and comes with significant drawbacks.

So, yes, I believe ARIN does what the members want, but more importantly, I
believe that the face to face meetings are a useful mechanism to preserve the
bottom up nature of the policy development process.

> 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 suppose you can joke about anything you want. Personally, I’ve never been on a
peering cruise, but I will say that it’s a pretty classic fallacy to discount 
the
value of the social times at conferences. In fact, I find those times to often
be when most of the real work gets done and when most of the benefit of getting
everyone together in the same place is realized.

While NANOG puts on a good technical program, my company gets far more benefit 
from
the time I spend meeting with network partners, suppliers, and potential 
customers
during the conference than they will ever see from my time in the sessions. So 
much
so that I generally attend the sessions on an as-available basis  when I’m not 
able
to schedule a more useful meeting. There are, of course exceptions. Some of the
sessions (maybe 3-4 per conference) are worth holding my time open to attend, 
but
most are not.

This does not mean that I don’t consider NANOG valuable, just that the primary 
value
is in the ability to meet with other attendees rather than directly in the 
technical
program itself.

I don’t mean this to be insulting to NANOG. I think the PC generally does a 
fine job
of putting on a good conference with great content. Most importantly, it’s good 
enough
that it draws in a large selection of people I need/want to meet with in a 
concentrated
time frame in a single location.

Peering fora, peering cruises, and the like have a similar effect.

So scoff all you want, but if you imagine that these events are silly junkets 
where
nothing gets accomplished, then you are seriously underestimating this 
community, IMHO.

Owen

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

[Martin Hannigan]

> 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 creating a 
>> market along with SFMIX.
> 
> SFMIX is in 5 physical locations(
> https://www.sfmix.org/connect/locations ) and is always open to
> talking to other providers about extending into their datacenter. So
> I'd say we're in a variety of locations! We've also just celebrated
> our 10 year anniversary :)
> 
> Leslie

Agreed. Extended XC?

Best,

-M<

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

[Leslie]

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 locations(
https://www.sfmix.org/connect/locations ) and is always open to
talking to other providers about extending into their datacenter. So
I'd say we're in a variety of locations! We've also just celebrated
our 10 year anniversary :)

Leslie

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: 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.

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: 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" <se...@rollernet.us> 
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: 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: 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: 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" <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 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 <ja...@puck.nether.net> wrote: 

> 
> > On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Matt Peterson <m...@peterson.org> 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: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Eric Kuhnke]

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?

[Hank Nussbacher]

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 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"?  

Would we prefer that Level3 which reported profits of $122M operate the IXPs 
instead?  Or perhaps NTT with $4.7B in profits in 2015?

The Internet is no longer a volunteer operation run out of a few CS departments 
in major universities.  If an IXP makes $4M of profit - good for them.  I'd 
rather have each of these IXPs not only secure from cyber attacks but also 
secure financially. 

To all IXPs that keep the bits flowing - keep up the good work.  Kudos!

-Hank

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

[Owen DeLong]

> 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 at the mic about their
>>> intentions. "
>> 
>> One of the least savory aspects of the technical press and industry analyst
>> worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's where big vendors pay you
>> to see stuff before its printed, so they can attempt to censor it.  It
>> happens all the time, and you never know about it.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> That's quite a bit further than anything I suggested. My notion was
> that after the presentation has been accepted, the mentioned vendors
> receive a copy... not so they can attempt to squelch it but so that
> they can respond when the presentation is given.

Here’s the problem with your theory, William…

Once you hand it to the vendors, you lose any semblance of control over how 
they use it.

Indeed, you’d like to hand it to them for that purpose, but once you do, 
nothing prevents them from the actions described by Daniel.

Indeed, this tradition in the print press began with exactly the kind of 
fair-minded idea of which you speak. Nonetheless, commercial interests drove it 
off the rails into exactly the dark and twisted kind of thing that Daniel 
describes. Such is the nature of commerce.

> Besides, which among you would dare try to squelch a NANOG
> presentation? Y'all are well familiar with the Streisand Effect.

Well… Some $LARGE_ORGANIZATIONS seem to either not know, don’t learn, or don’t 
care. Hard to tell which.

For example, there’s a certain industry that has gone through the following 
progression:

1.  The FCC put forth very light-handed almost voluntary 
regulations on net neutrality.
2.  They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
3.  The FCC put forth a slightly heavier-handed regulation.
4.  They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
5.  The FCC issued a ruling entirely within its authority which was 
quite a bit more heavy-handed.
It was the only tool left in the tool box once the lighter 
approaches were ruled invalid.
6.  They complained that the regulation was “too heavy-handed”.
7.  They sued the FCC claiming it had no such authority.
8.  A federal appeals court just upheld the FCC 2:1.
9.  They say they want to take it to the supreme court.

The bottom line, when there’s enough money on the line, some organizations with 
a vested interest will do anything and everything they can to protect their 
ability to obtain that money. Helping them is optional. Helping them by trying 
to be nice is naive.

Owen

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

[Owen DeLong]

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 beyond fair criticism. He was clear about what was his opinion 
and what wasn’t.

I do think he’s flat out wrong in his belief about marketing budgets of 
regulated utilities. I know for a fact, that PG spends tons of money on 
marketing. Sure, they aren’t sponsoring coffee bars at NANOG, that’s not their 
target market. Neither are the IXPs running television ads (at least none that 
I know of) since that’s not their target market. PG does do lots of TV ads, 
billboards, and other consumer-oriented marketing.

I’m sure if you were to attend electrical industry trade shows, you’d find they 
have a presence there as well, though I have no idea, it’s not my industry.

I do think we could all benefit from more cost-effective ISPs and I do think 
that models like MICE, SIX, and SFMIX are better for most of their participants 
than the ultra-expensive premium exchanges with branch offices in all the major 
markets.

However, I suspect that in the long run, market demand will actually sort that 
out.

Owen

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

[William Herrin]

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 of the technical press and industry analyst
> worlds is something called pre-pub review. That's where big vendors pay you
> to see stuff before its printed, so they can attempt to censor it.  It
> happens all the time, and you never know about it.

Hi Daniel,

That's quite a bit further than anything I suggested. My notion was
that after the presentation has been accepted, the mentioned vendors
receive a copy... not so they can attempt to squelch it but so that
they can respond when the presentation is given.

Besides, which among you would dare try to squelch a NANOG
presentation? Y'all are well familiar with the Streisand Effect.

Regards,
Bill

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

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

[Paras Jha]

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 people, that's a different story. But
criticism is criticism, and a sharp tongue isn't reason enough to try to
censor viewpoints. Individuals who see it as a problem are more than free
to take action to protect themselves (read: stop listening to them).

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> 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 times this.
>
> 2. This is why we have RFC 2142 (which specifies role addresses
> such as postmaster@, abuse@, and so on): so that we can easily and
> quickly tell each other when we're screwing up so that it can be fixed.
> This is why all professional and responsible operations maintain those
> addresses, pay attention to what shows up there, read it, analyze it,
> act on it, and respond to it.  This is and has been an instrinic part
> of our operational culture for decades -- even though we all know
> that just about every message ever received via them will be negative.
> (Because nobody's going to drop a line to hostmaster@ noting that our
> DNS servers are all working perfectly.)
>
> A critical presentation is really no different than an email message
> to webmaster@ that points out a 404'd URL.  It's an opportunity to
> fix something and to do better.
>
> ---rsk
>



-- 
Regards,
Paras

President
ProTraf Solutions, LLC
Enterprise DDoS Mitigation

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

[Rich Kulawiec]

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 times this.

2. This is why we have RFC 2142 (which specifies role addresses
such as postmaster@, abuse@, and so on): so that we can easily and
quickly tell each other when we're screwing up so that it can be fixed.
This is why all professional and responsible operations maintain those
addresses, pay attention to what shows up there, read it, analyze it,
act on it, and respond to it.  This is and has been an instrinic part
of our operational culture for decades -- even though we all know
that just about every message ever received via them will be negative.
(Because nobody's going to drop a line to hostmaster@ noting that our
DNS servers are all working perfectly.)

A critical presentation is really no different than an email message
to webmaster@ that points out a 404'd URL.  It's an opportunity to
fix something and to do better.

---rsk

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

[Jared Mauch]

> 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?

[Paul WALL]

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?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

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 unpublished 
vulnerability) - how is a service provider any different?


I think we should have the discussion in a constructive manner.

What do we want the IXPs to do? What do we want the RIRs to do? What do we 
want the ccTLDs to do? What do we want IANA, ISOC, IETF etc to do?


Right now they're doing things that they see as "good for the community", 
and not only spending money on producing their own service. They do 
outreach because not everybody knows about every service available. They 
hire community members and send them to conferences (IGF for instance) to 
try to achieve that governments hear from us. They spend money on 
research. They might spend money on acilliary services such as root/ccTLD 
name servers or NTP servers on the IXP.


When asking community what should be done, a wide range of different 
answers are given.


I don't have a problem having this discussion. I don't see it as "vendor 
bashing" but instead as someone who has an opinion on how things are done 
today.


Question is, how can it be had in a constructive manner?

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

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

[Bryan Fields]

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 - only organizations and companies.
>>
> 
> As noted earlier in the thread, the specific presentation isn't my interest
> here - I actually enjoyed the talk and agree with many of the points
> stated. What made me uncomfortable was peer IXP's feeling uncomfortable and
> even a college immersion participant asking "is NANOG always such a
> threatening environment?".

Nothing was threatening, it was debate.  Sometimes debate is heated, but that
was not even heated debate.  If you were offended, grow a thicker skin.  You
don't have a right against offense and much thought provoking discussion can
be offensive to some people.

I thought it was great to see some back and forth.

To the college student, this was debate in it's purist form.  There are no
"free speech zones" here.

> Organizations and companies are members of our greater community, even if
> they don't technically have a membership role. At this morning's membership
> meeting - it was restated that NANOG is highly dependent on sponsorships
> (rarely do we see such financial contributions from individuals that would
> be enough to support NANOG). It would be a shame to loose that income
> source when only minor content guidelines could be made.

I'd rather lose a sponsorship than restrict our debate.  Censorship is evil,
prior restraint is just as bad.

> I'm sorry Dan, but this sort of "old boys network" attitude has gone on for
> way too long in NANOG. I've already received 13 off list responses "well
> said", "nicely done", "finally a reality check", etc. I'm not at all
> suggesting bashing should go away, as you note - that is a paramount
> feature of NANOG. Instead the question is when is it appropriate to shame
> members of the industry and how do we frame that in an professional manner
> (I realize you may have challenges in such a demonstration) .

Oh come on, it was a small ribbing at worst.
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net

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

[Randy Bush]

> 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
> identifier.

< rant >

pablum nog.  you are pandering to vendors to keep attendee costs down so
you can have a high attendee count most of whom are sales folk.  what
can possibly go wrong?

the pc be should have at least two talks including the unvarnished truth
about specific named vendors, and at least one talk must be about a
'sponsor', whatever the hell that is and why it is needed.  different
ones every time, it is a target rich environment.

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.

if you tell the vendors the truth, the real vendor engineers can go home
and explain why they need management support to fix things.  the truth
makes us all free.

randy