[190337] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Sun Jun 26 16:59:51 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:59:47 -0500
From: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: Brandon Ross <bross@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1606181347330.26878@brugal>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
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
