Agreed, Microsoft process is painful with forced to use the azure interface. Meta and cloudflare have nice portals that use peeringdb for auth.
On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, 12:03 PM Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: > And so many of those bilateral processes are just simply broken. > > > > -----Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet > ExchangeThe Brothers WISP > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Will Hargrave <w...@harg.net> > To: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:22:34 -0600 (CST) > Subject: Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit? > > On 5 Nov 2024, at 16:56, Tom Beecher wrote: > > >> Especially so if a few of the large content providers continue to pull > >> back from route servers and such. > > Content providers aren't leaving IXP's completely. They're still there, > > still paying monthly for ports and XCs. Still doing bilateral peering > over > > the IX. There's no revenue hit to an IXP for a CDN to de-peer off the > route > > servers. > > Hi Tom, > > I don’t really think your last statement is true. > > UK, and London in particular, is quite a dynamic market. At LONAP we see > plenty of networks connect and see an immediate “quick win” of traffic by > connection to our route-servers, where adoption among the membership is > something like 85-90%. > > If an operator decides to replace those RS sessions with a (often > intractable) portal to request bilateral sessions - or worse, email - that > immediate traffic benefit is lost. That can affect the value the IXP > provides to its members. > > Will > >
