[190222] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Sun Jun 19 10:13:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <1098899885.62095.1466345245411.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 11:13:28 -0300
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I don't buy this. They sold you one cable before, they sell you cable now.
Little difference then we moved customers from a T1 to T3 back in the
90's. If Colo's can't understand more then 20+ yrs of evolution its hardly
right to blame it on the market.
-jim
Mimir Networks
www.mimirnetworks.com
On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
> Before 100G, you'd need ten cross connects to move 100G. Now you'd need
> only one. That's a big drop in revenue.
>
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk>
> To: bross@pobox.com, dave@temk.in
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 8:55:57 AM
> Subject: Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
>
> Dave Temkin <dave@temk.in> wrote:
> > And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the
> > impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster
> than
> > 100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around
> > regardless.
>
> If they've based their model on extracting profit proportional
> to technology speed then they've misunderstood Moore's law
>
> brandon
>
>
