[190150] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Thu Jun 16 14:46:22 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:43:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <c27a9fe0-b80c-cede-c0ad-21d715784522@dialtelecom.cz>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think that's a very limited mindset.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zbyn=C4=9Bk Posp=C3=ADchal" <zbynek@dialtelecom.cz>=20
To: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:19:22 PM=20
Subject: Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?=20
Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a):=20
> * zbynek@dialtelecom.cz (Zbyn=C4=9Bk Posp=C3=ADchal) [Thu 16 Jun 2016, 14=
:23 CEST]:=20
>> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these=20
>> features separately?=20
>>=20
>> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for=20
>> networks who don't need/want it.=20
>=20
> sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function.=20
Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member=20
with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they=20
don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's=20
possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats.=20
We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok,=20
remote peering is a different case).=20
If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port=20
fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need=20
it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible.=20
Best Regards,=20
Zbynek=20
