On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com> wrote:
all,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood <toddunder@gmail.com> wrote:
it's also not entirely obvious what the point of having local IXes that serve these kinds of collections of people.
this conversation is sort of like the ipv6 part earlier though... 'if people want to do this, cool! if they don't or can't for $REASONS also cool.'
oh, for sure. anyone who wants to should, of course.
i'm just pointing out (in opposition to the drumbeat of "MOAR IXes EVERYWHERE!!!" message) that IXes are often not that useful and people should critically evaluate whether they need one and would benefit from the cost.
sure... folk in a position to do so might want to look at their netflow/etc data and decide to where they send/receive the most traffic, if it's their neighbor consider saying: "Howdy neighbor! how about we uncongest our longhaul and send these bits over a local ethernet? Oh! jane's also in the mix, let's get together on a hp switch and win!"
so far, the "coolness", "psychological", "possible future industry" benefits are all cited. that's fine. but there's often zero business case for an IX outside of major fibre confluences.
'major' perhaps depends on your perspective here, right? Sure, in Chicago where boatloads of east/west (and some North/South) fiber shares conduit it sure seems clearly a win to have an IX there... but I bet if you have 1g to SEA from ANK... losing 200mbps to crappy-gammer-uturn traffic would be nice to avoid too, eh? Or hell email even... anyway, sure more numbers and metrics and thought seems like a good plan, just like in the v6 discussion earlier.