Well. Its complicated. I think this is far more political than about COGS. But hey. Why not?
I agree with Dave. Shocking. I know. At least the context. He's right. Thanks for reminding us. We know these things. We'll have to see how IXP communities react now. Perhaps espresso service will be defined as good outreach? If it is, thats certainly up to them. Btw, have you thanked your local US branded euro IXP? They created market pressures that saved many of us a Brinks truck full of cash by increasing competitiveness. A lot of us owe them thanks and support for doing good. If you do, grab Job, John, Henk, Pauline, Arnold or Andreas and give them a big COGS crushing hug. Go easy on Pauline, less crush please. Best, Marty On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Zbyněk Pospíchal <zby...@dialtelecom.cz> wrote: > Dne 16.06.16 v 17:17 Niels Bakker napsal(a): > > * zby...@dialtelecom.cz <javascript:;> (Zbyněk Pospíchal) [Thu 16 Jun > 2016, 14:23 CEST]: > > >> Are you sure they still want them if they have to pay for these > >> features separately? > >> > >> Currently, such luxury functions are increasing costs also for > >> networks who don't need/want it. > > > > sFlow statistics isn't a luxury function. > > Anything more than plain L2 in an IXP is a kind of luxury. An IXP member > with it's own flow collection (or at least mac accounting) can feel they > don't need sFlow statistics in an exchange. It's also proven it's > possible to run an IXP, including a big one, without sFlow stats. > > We can say the same about route servers, SLA, customer portals etc. (ok, > remote peering is a different case). > > If IXP members think they have to pay such functionality in their port > fees, ok, it's their own decision, but member's opinion "we don't need > it and we don't want to pay for it" is rational and plausible. > > Best Regards, > Zbynek >
