[190227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sun Jun 19 13:08:38 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <63D33C31-6D05-4C96-A1B7-E9A32D3C2706@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 13:08:33 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You assume things like "nobody's business" has something to do with "extract=
ing money".=20
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.=20
> On Jun 19, 2016, at 13:02, David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>=20
> Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just g=
ive you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :)
>=20
> I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wi=
re twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is differe=
nt from SMF etc. what gets run over it is nobody's business but the person c=
ontrolling the end points.
>=20
> David Barak
> Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
>=20
>> 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=A1=
=AFll see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is usually more th=
an double the percentage of their revenue from xconns. Put another way, if x=
conn revenue drops by 10%, their profit drops by over 20%. How many public c=
ompanies 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 n=
ow.
>>> 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 har=
dly
>>> 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
