 |
 |
That's an excellant point Andrew and a great example. It certainly makes the case for considering continuing the current model. Again, it comes down to evaluating costs. Jay's model seems to indicate that the non-recurring fees are the largest part of this model. It's also fair to assume this gear will be in service for more than one year. s *Shaun Carlson *Senior Network Engineer | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | contact: protocol.by/scarlson em: [log in to unmask] On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Andrew Hoyos <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: > > Obviously others here are members of more than just MICE, would some care > > to share the structure of other IX's? maybe that helps us guide our > model? > > So I might be in the minority here, but I don't see the need to charge > recurring fees, especially with the level of community > involvement/donations we have seen with MICE. > > This model has worked just fine for SIX ( > http://www.seattleix.net/intro.htm), and they are operating on a MUCH > larger scale. > > SFP = cost of GigE port > SFP + $5k = cost of 10GigE port > > And no shortage of contributors: http://www.seattleix.net/contrib.htm > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > [log in to unmask] > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1