[190159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Baldur Norddahl)
Thu Jun 16 19:12:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9DBE06AF-E738-465B-9D19-A8270AFA1AF0@netnod.se>
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:09:20 +0200
To: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Hi,
I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members, but we
can not simply because it is too expensive. I just signed a deal with he.ne=
t
for a flatrate 10G transit for about the same as the 10G Comix port cost.
The difference being that the he.net port provides much more value and
besides also provides indirect one-step-away peering with everyone on Comix=
.
So from my perspective it is clear that Netnod has a pricing problem here.
Especially for the lower speeds (10G). There is also a value problem
because the only Comix peer that moves a lot of traffic to us is Akamai,
and they promised that we could peer directly skipping the middleman.
We are based in Copenhagen. The Netnod IX in Stockholm would provide a lot
more value, but to get there we have to add the cost for transport and
after doing that, the comparison to the 10G he.net transit is just silly.
Here is an opinion: If the IX pricing is comparable to transit, the service
needs to be too. Netnod will need to connect the five (I think there are
five) Netnod IX'es into one big domain. I am meeting with NL-IX next week
and as I understand it, that is exactly what they did - we will probably
buy NL-IX and skip Netnod for this single reason.
I feel that smaller providers are being let down by the IX community at
this point. The value of "smaller" is going to get larger if the IX
community does not move with the transit providers. We want to take part
but there is a limit of how much over price you can sign onto and keep your
job.
Regards,
Baldur
On 16 June 2016 at 15:52, Nurani Nimpuno <nurani@netnod.se> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> So, I watched your presentation this week at NANOG remotely, sorry I
> couldn=E2=80=99t be there.
>
> Ok, so while you make a lot of very different points in your
> presentations, I *think* the basic argument you are making is that IXPs a=
re
> too expensive. Correct me if I=E2=80=99m wrong. Or more specifically, you=
are
> saying that Ams-IX, Linx, Netnod and DE-CIX are too expensive. You have n=
ot
> looked at US IXPs because they don=E2=80=99t publish their fees, and you =
have not
> looked at the whole IXP community.
>
> I think you are then also questioning if these IXPs are using their funds
> wisely. You are also stating that you are talking about these IXPs from t=
he
> perspective of a big US provider connecting into Europe (i.e not a small
> local ISP). You question some of the IXP expansions into the US. You
> question the membership model as a viable model for IXPs. You also say th=
at
> those who sustain the IXPs growth should benefit from them. And you
> question why there are so many IXPs, and not only a handful of very big
> ones. I hope I have captured this correctly.
>
> Ok, so firstly, I must say I=E2=80=99m a little disappointed that you or =
your
> staff have never approach us to discuss any of this. We have Netnod
> meetings twice a year, we have been present at many of the same events in
> the last year and we have always strived to be open, transparent and to
> listen to our entire customer base. I take your point about the Netnod fe=
es
> (even though I would also like to point out that we have actually reduced
> our other port fees for 100mbps, 1G, remote peering). But I=E2=80=99m not=
sure why
> you haven=E2=80=99t brought it to us directly. Netflix has been at severa=
l Netnod
> meetings in the past, so we have had plenty of opportunity to discuss thi=
s.
>
> But ok, let=E2=80=99s leave that aside. I will try to address some of you=
r points.
>
> Firstly as many have pointed out, these four IXPs are not representative
> of all IXPs, and the four of us are also very different from each other.
>
> I can=E2=80=99t address the IXP expansion into the US. And I don=E2=80=99=
t represent a
> membership-based IXP.
>
> The European IXP community is a very diverse one, serving different
> regions, markets and different types of customers. I personally believe
> that this rich diversity is one of the reasons the European interconnecti=
on
> scene has been flourishing as well as it has. There is a big difference
> between Europe and the rest of the world, particularly the US. And the
> European IXP community was held up as a model for the rest of the world b=
y
> many. We have been cooperating for many years through the Euro-IX where o=
ur
> common goals have been to improve interconnection in the region, share
> information and experience and work to improve services for our customers=
.
> (I believe you have been trying to do the same through Open-IX.)
>
> The diversity has also been seen as important to serve both the very larg=
e
> international providers like yourself, and the small local ISPs. Localisi=
ng
> traffic and building a local operator community have been seen as an
> important ingredient in the value of the IXPs. Our challenge as IXPs is t=
o
> find the best way to serve all these different needs and wishes from our
> very diverse customer base. Having only a handful of very large IXPs woul=
d
> in my view not serve these different needs as well. Personally I am a
> subscriber to both Netflix and HBO. I like diversity. :) But sure, it=E2=
=80=99s an
> interesting discussion to be had!
>
> As others have pointed out, contrary to common belief, the technical part
> of an IXP is one of the simplest. There is a plethora of examples of IXPs
> in Africa, but also in the US, where IXPs simply are a single switch
> sitting in a closet somewhere, only serving a handful of ASes. One of the
> biggest challenges for an IXP is to gain customers and get enough
> gravitation and value to the exchange. A growing exchange point is not on=
ly
> a "nice-to-have" for those operating it, but vital to those networks who
> peer there. If you stop adding value to those networks peering at the IX,
> you will slowly become irrelevant.
>
> While some think that a good technical solution would sell itself, I
> believe that is a fallacy (not only in the IXP world). Netnod started out
> as a very small IXPs with only a few local operators connected to it. And=
I
> strongly believe that if we hadn=E2=80=99t done as much outreach as we do=
, we
> would=E2=80=99ve stayed tiny until this day.
>
> As for how we do this outreach and what events we go to, while I can=E2=
=80=99t
> speak for any other IXes, I seriously doubt that any professional IXP tod=
ay
> would not carefully assess the business value for each event it attends. =
At
> Netnod, we evaluate each event we send people to, and assess and measure
> the value afterwards.
>
> Then I thought I would write some words about Netnod specifically since
> you bring us up.
>
> (As others have pointed out, the RIPE meeting social is covered partly by
> the RIPE NCC, partly by the sponsor, and partly by the participants
> themselves, so I=E2=80=99ll just leave that there.)
>
> Firstly, yes we are a little strange. We are not just an IXP. We run
> i-root.servers.net and we provide DNS anycast service, among other
> things. We also have a funny governance structure for historical reasons
> (which was set up when Netnod was established and the IXP and I-root
> =E2=80=9Cmoved=E2=80=9D there) many years ago. We are owned by a foundati=
on and we describe
> ourselves as non-profit. In Sweden there is actually no =E2=80=9Cnon-prof=
it=E2=80=9D status
> as such, but we have always operated under that principle. We are not a
> membership organisation, but we have always strived to be transparent, an=
d
> whenever we have wanted to make major changes to our services, we have
> consulted the customer base. That is how we have worked on both the IX an=
d
> DNS side.
>
> We work in a similar way with our pricing. (You mention that there is a
> lot of negotiations on pricing with IXPs.) I would like to be 100% clear
> that for the Netnod IX, we don=E2=80=99t negotiate or give =E2=80=9Csweet=
deals=E2=80=9D to anyone.
> We publish our fee schedule and we stick to it. Whenever someone wants a
> special deal (which happens often, particularly with the larger customers=
),
> our response is that we treat everyone equally. If you want a cheaper dea=
l,
> then another customer is basically funding your reduction. So we don=E2=
=80=99t do
> this. We believe this is more fair and transparent.
>
> Coming back to Netnod's broader scope, this also means that we do other
> things than sell peering. We go to, and sponsor events that might not mak=
e
> sense from a peering perspective. We support other =E2=80=9CGood of the I=
nternet=E2=80=9D
> initiatives, we participate in standards development (particularly on the
> DNS side), we participate in TLD associations etc. Some of these activiti=
es
> may seem odd to some who are only involved with one part of our business,=
I
> understand that. We try to be open with this though.
>
> As for a general discussion about costs, service levels and IXPs, I think
> there is a very interesting discussion that could be had with a more
> focused discussion. How do =E2=80=9Cwe=E2=80=9D best serve today's very d=
iverse set of
> operators? How does an IXP strike that balance? How do operators best sol=
ve
> their interconnection needs (through IXPs, private peering, transit etc)
> and is that changing? What type of interconnection environment do we
> believe best scales Internet growth in the future? What is the total cost
> of interconnection, where are the big costs, what are the different model=
s
> and where is the whole industry moving? Now THOSE are discussions I
> personally would find very valuable!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nurani
> Netnod
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 juni 2016, at 13:21, Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Aled Morris <aledm@qix.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.
> >>
> >> I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
> >> generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they
> are
> >> paying.
> >>
> >> Is Dave trying to say they are being duped? Is he trying to identify =
a
> >> need for regulation?
> >>
> >
> > I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including t=
he
> > actual organizational structure.
> >
> > I was also opining on how these IXPs could be better; mainly, how they
> > choose to spend money.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model and suggesting the customers
> of
> >> the existing exchanges should be looking to organise an alternative in
> >> their localities.
> >>
> >
> > Absolutely correct (which should answer Hank's question, as well).
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Or perhaps this is a wakeup call for LoNAP and the smaller exchanges w=
ho
> >> "compete" with AMS-IX, DE-CIX and NetNod - stop trying to mimic their
> >> commercial models (big fees which pay for staff and marketing) and loo=
k
> >> instead at the lean SIX as the way of offering a service at a price
> >> competitive to transit.
> >>
> >
> > Also absolutely correct. I don't want to see them falling into a trap o=
f
> > conflating marketing and outreach and/or offering an overly rich produc=
t
> > set at the cost of price and operational simplicity.
> >
> >
> >> Or was there a hidden message in Dave's presentation that I missed?
> >>
> >
> > Seems like you got it.
> >
> >
> >> Aled
> >>
> >
>
>
