On Apr 16, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Mike Horwath wrote:

> On 4/15/11 8:40 PM, "Jay Hanke" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>>> Is our hope that if we can get one CDN to hook up the rest will follow
>>> on their own?
>>> It might be a little more palatable if we think about it with a long
>>> view.
>> 
>> Indirectly yes. There are a number of local networks that won't
>> connect unless we have one of the big cdns available on the exchange.
>> There are cdns that won't connect until we have more local networks
>> connected.
> 
> I love the 'community'.
> 
No sarcasm, there, right? ;-)

> I mean, unless my demands are met, I can not join your community even if
> it would benefit myself and the community, now leave me alone while I
> check out this new pile of sand and figure out what is underneath.
> 
Yeah, not a particularly community-spirited attitude. I agree with you.

>>> But of course we also have to think about the precedent we're setting...
>> 
>> We should be mindful of this.
> 
> This discussion has changed my mind about things.
> 
> CDN wants to connect, they can buy a rack and provide a cross-connect and
> peer up either via the route servers or do some bilateral peering.
> 
I won't quite go that far. CDNs do present a somewhat different value proposition
to an exchange. I believe they add enough value that if the costs are low,
comping them the XC and the space is not an unreasonable value proposition
for the exchange. Obviously this can vary some, depending on the CDN in
question.

> Those providers who won't connect without a CDN need to put pressure on
> the CDN if that is their requirement, and they can continue routing to
> Kansas City or Chicago for years for all I care.
> 
I think this is not an unreasonable position.

> And if I sound pissy, sorry.
> 
I'd say you sound frustrated more than pissy. There's strong emotion in your
comments, but, they also make sense from a purely pragmatic perspective
as far as I can tell.

> I am not interested in kowtowing further for CDNs or begging for networks
> to connect when they say they would and still haven't after 6+ months.
> 
lol

> Some seem to have forgotten about this idea of interconnecting locally for
> the benefit of their downstream customers, whether that is a student,
> another company who isn't multi-homed, or their employees.
> 
That is unfortunate. Obviously we (Hurricane Electric) feel that there is
extensive value in connecting to various exchanges. I believe we've been
routing traffic via MICE since shortly after our network arrived in Minneapolis.

> This has the added benefit of shaving costs on Internet fees for
> bandwidth, and as time goes on, the benefit continues to grow with the
> addition of more networks joining the community bringing to the table the
> other benefits.  Like CDNs, or sharing of a resource of some type.
> 
I couldn't agree more.

> How many on this list:
> 
> Are connected...
> 
Yep... Check!

> Have an Akamai cluster today...
> 
Uh, no comment due to NDA. (see question 4)

> Either have static assignments logged with Akamai or use a silent BGP
> feed...
> 
I'm not sure I:
	1.	Understand the question completely
	2.	Could answer it if I did.

> Are willing to plug in networks received over the route servers into their
> configuration for their Akamai cluster config...
> 
I think you'd like my answer if I could give it, but, it is neither yes nor no
because the question doesn't fit the parameters of our particular situation.

> ipHouse answer: Yes to all 4
> 
> If enough others do this, then we'll have a redundant array of Akamai
> servers reachable over the interconnections we have put in place as being
> part of MICE.
> 
I think that's a great idea.

I also think it would be worth encouraging Akamai to deploy a shared
resource for the exchange, possibly allowing them to reclaim some or all
of the resources they have deployed within member networks, providing
benefit to the community and to Akamai.

> *WE* can do something for MICE, we don't need to beg Akamai for something,
> or Limelight, or any of the myriad of others.  We start showing the
> benefits to *our* community and eventually the CDNs will see that they
> will get more eyes (== $$$) on the content by providing a direct cluster.
> 
Yep.

> And if you think they are going to sit back because things are already in
> place... I don't think so, and that's because my little cluster I have in
> my data center won't sustain the total traffic, neither will yours, and as
> customers complain, Akamai (the example used right now) will hear about it
> and want to do something about it.
> 
That might also be true, it might not. I'm happy to have a more detailed
discussion with you off-list.

> My rant is over, whatever the community wants to do is fine by me, but as
> one of the steering committee members, I am backing off from this issue
> that is of minor importance to me.
> 
> I find it would be far more important for those networks that stated they
> were going to connect to get off of their butts and connect.
> 
I agree with you 100% here.

> You know who you are...500Mbps of aggregate traffic already and growing,
> don't you want to be on the ground floor of the community so you can say
> 'I was there when it started'?
> 
Yep... And if anyone connecting today can say that, I'm pretty sure that I can,
too. ;-)

Owen

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1