[190226] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak via NANOG)
Sun Jun 19 13:02:32 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CEB38E30-52AB-4A59-A8EE-4791DB45DE0A@ianai.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 10:02:27 -0700
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: David Barak via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just gi=
ve you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :)
I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wire=
twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is different=
from SMF etc. what gets run over it is nobody's business but the person co=
ntrolling the end points.
David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
> On Jun 19, 2016, at 8:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:=
>=20
> Actually, back in the T1/T3 days, colos frequently asked what you ran on t=
he cable and then charged you based on the capacity of the circuit - even wh=
en it was the same exact cable. Of course, none of us would ever ask for T1 x=
conn then run ethernet over it.
>=20
> Colo providers are absolutely worried about drops in xconn revenue. Look a=
t some large colo providers who are public and split out their numbers. You=E2=
=80=99ll see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is usually more=
than double the percentage of their revenue from xconns. Put another way, i=
f xconn revenue drops by 10%, their profit drops by over 20%. How many publi=
c companies can shrug off a 20% drop in EPS? I submit: Not very many.
>=20
> This is not surprising. When you build your business on the ignorance of y=
our customers, you are in a world of hurt once your customers learn even a l=
ittle bit more.
>=20
> --=20
> TTFN,
> patrick
>=20
>> On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> I don't buy this. They sold you one cable before, they sell you cable no=
w.
>> 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 hard=
ly
>> right to blame it on the market.
>>=20
>>=20
>> -jim
>> Mimir Networks
>> www.mimirnetworks.com
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:=
>>>=20
>>> Before 100G, you'd need ten cross connects to move 100G. Now you'd need
>>> only one. That's a big drop in revenue.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> -----
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>=20
>>> 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
>>>=20
>>> 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.
>>>=20
>>> If they've based their model on extracting profit proportional
>>> to technology speed then they've misunderstood Moore's law
>>>=20
>>> brandon
>=20
