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

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com>]

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 <zbynek () dialtelecom cz> wrote:

> Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a):
> > * zbynek () dialtelecom cz <javascript:;> (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