> The networks in this range are moving the bulk of the traffic on the IX

Yes, but they are also providing the most value to the IX for all members.

True, and they are receiving the bulk of the value.

> > Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) would be a better move.

The costs including the xconn and port fee are below just the xconn fee in most major carrier hotels. The reduced 10G initial port is to provide a stepping stone to paid membership while allowing small networks a low-cost way in. At $250 per year per 10G port we don't raise enough money to be stable or to build a reserve for hardware or other expenses.

Right, but you’re leaving out the internal costs for the big guys (or mid tier/small folks even) of router ports. It’s far cheaper for one of the big guys to light another 10g port, I’d suspect, than add 100g interfaces. Maybe that’s changing, but again, I don’t agree with penalizing folks for adding more traffic to the IX on multiple 10g ports vs single 100g ports. MICE isn’t paying cross connects, so seems like that should’t be part of the equation when we look at it from a fee charging perspective.

Each network will have to make the calculation and determine what is in their best interest. MICE is here to serve the members and the overall cost to the members is critical. We have a fixed amount of real estate to work with for ports within the chassis. 100G is a much more efficient than doing large LAG groups. So a 8 member lag eats up a larger portion of the annual support budget. It also requires setup and troubleshooting of 8 ports.

On a 10G card with 48 ports, an 8 member LAG uses 12.5% of the slot or 3% of the overall chassis. On a 100G card there are 32 ports, A single 100G uses 3% of a slot and less than 1% of the chassis.

Jay