Hi Nurani, Much of what you've asked me below is answered up-thread, so I'm not going to rehash it for the sanity of the others following this discussion. I have snipped what hasn't been.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Nurani Nimpuno <nur...@netnod.se> wrote: > > > I take your point about the Netnod fees (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’m not sure why you haven’t brought it to us > directly. Netflix has been at several Netnod meetings in the past, so we > have had plenty of opportunity to discuss this. > Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees". You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and pointed out that I seek to help the entire market, not just my employer, better understand how IXPs price their services, what things are negotiable, and what things need to change. Call it thinly-veiled, but I didn't even use my employer slide master - this was geared as a community discussion. > And I don’t represent a membership-based IXP. > An important distinction. Poring through http://www.netnod.se/about/documents , there is very little transparency into the actual operations of NetNod. > > If you stop adding value to those networks peering at the IX, you will > slowly become irrelevant. > And therein lies the rub, we (many of us, not just you and I) disagree about what "adding value" is defined as. I'm glad we can have this conversation. > > 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’t done as much outreach as we do, we > would’ve stayed tiny until this day. > Outreach is fantastic! > > > 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’t negotiate or give “sweet deals” 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 deal, > then another customer is basically funding your reduction. So we don’t do > this. We believe this is more fair and transparent. > That's fantastic, and I agree with this approach. And that's why it's important to make this a community discussion, not a "Netflix and Netnod" discussion. > > 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 “we” best serve today's very diverse set of > operators? How does an IXP strike that balance? How do operators best solve > 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 models > and where is the whole industry moving? Now THOSE are discussions I > personally would find very valuable! > We agree. I'm really glad that this has sprouted so many threads of discussion. This seems to have kicked off the discussion within the larger community beyond just the four examples, and I think that what we've seen thus far is healthy discourse.