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

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

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" <zbynek () 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): 
> * zbynek () 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