[190171] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Will Hargrave)
Fri Jun 17 05:31:20 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Will Hargrave" <will@harg.net>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:31:12 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADn4PSghcnuecRezUqetCHtQ0LkWcvefAR=3VYRiaHFbdO9wkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:15, Daniel Golding wrote:
> You said that LONAP's distributed strategy "kept datacenters honest" =
> to use
> your exact quote. That implied some sort of benefit for members in =
> acting
> as some sort of counterweight to (rapacious?) data center providers.
I rely primarily on information from our membership base who reaffirm =
their desire for a multi-site approach. They (and you) are the people =
with the data, as they are the people buying these services.
The origin of these designs was probably not out of a desire for =
diversity to promote competition, but actually because existing =
datacentres were full.
Nevertheless, a datacentre which is full, incompetently run, or too =
expensive all have something in common - to my members they are useless.
> I made the point that distributed IX's don't really
> impact power or space costs in data centers. I can provide actual data =
> on
> this, if you would like.
What about crossconnect prices?
It is interesting you have data that indicates that this policy could be =
futile, because the belief in this principle is almost axiomatic in =
our/my community.
Did we waste time and money spanning metros with IXs=10?
