On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:19 PM, Todd Underwood <toddun...@gmail.com> wrote: > all, > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Christopher Morrow > <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Todd Underwood <toddun...@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.
