On 27/03/2014 13:20, "Will Hargrave" <[email protected]> wrote: > >Actually, it doesn¹t - as evidenced by the massive reseller growth at >AMS-IX of smaller ASNs (they¹re up to 659 connected now) since >introduction of the reseller programme.
They have done (as have many others) a great job to make it easy. I believe though that its entirely possible using a traditional model and generates a better overall return case. > > >I share many of your concerns - the 30,000ft view - about shared fates >and the variety of other problems partner programmes and l2 >interconnections bring; but I think, having spent a decade running >networks at large telcos, you don¹t appreciate the market other networks >operate in. This model works very well for hundreds of networks. Today's >peering networks are more diverse than ever. I don¹t think I said that the model isn¹t working Will, I said its not a good model from a design perspective or at least that¹s what I meant and that its not the only cost effective solution. I also think it has drawbacks as does any model. But if I may throw your assertion back at you (:)) you don¹t appreciate the view that one gets given the knowledge of unit costs of infrastructure and systems to support the type of infrastructure required to build what I¹m positioning. You also don¹t appreciate that in many cases and in the many large telcos I¹ve worked in - we are often, if not always, competing with those types of companies, notably in the small business sector and wholesale sectors - but do I take seriously the cost of networks, absolutely I do, I also take massive note of what I call ³design debt² where you make a choice that costs you a lot to live with later on. But that¹s the great thing about UKNOF, it allows us to share our views and hopefully learn something from each other. Regards, Neil.
