While that helps move towards V6 how does that solve the issue of keeping
equipment up to date?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Owen DeLong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist...
>
> Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee
> for dual-stack!
>
> Owen
>
> On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
> > I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it
> includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it
> can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a
> connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's
> $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up
> with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one
> vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections
> to remote switch to not be full voting participants.
> >
> > I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those
> going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion
> lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade
> to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is
> about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or
> $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs.
> >
> > If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for
> the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too
> But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems
> later.
> >
> > The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant
> expense for most people.
> >
> > Remember Metcalfe's law;
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
> >
> > The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to
> the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit
> contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution
> from everyone. I wouldn't
> >
> > On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote:
> >> After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has
> >> changed a little bit.
> >>
> >> I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought
> >> forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something".
> >>
> >> Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years)
> >>
> >> So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch
> >> and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of
> >> access method (be it remote or main switch).
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > ===============================================
> > David Farmer Email:[log in to unmask]
> > Networking & Telecommunication Services
> > Office of Information Technology
> > University of Minnesota
> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815
> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952
> > ===============================================
> >
> > ########################################################################
> >
> > 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
>
--
Brian Mort
Network Engineer IV (ENA,ENS,ECDP)
visit our website: arvig
(218) 346-8231
[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
