 |
 |
On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Jason Hanke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with > 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE > would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. > There would be one additional slot for future growth. That’s awesome, thanks USI and Arista! Seems like a no brainer to proceed with that option. > Here's what I'd propose: > 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) > Initial 10G port= $250 Annual > Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) > 100G port $3000 Annual per port If we’re going the annual route - any reason/logic behind why the 20g -> 80g range seems to carry a disproportionate amount of the fee load? 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. For comparison on a IX that charges yearly and is non-profit like MICE, NWAX might be a good example, which is charging: 1gbps Port 1st port FREE - additional, $295/month 10gbps Port $295/month 100gbps Port $1995/month + $6000 NRC I’d also disagree with not allowing multiple 1g ports for customers into a LAG. For small bootstrapped companies, that 1g -> 10g jump can be expensive, and 2xGigE LAG doesn’t seem like a problem in the case where they are hitting that 60-70% on a GigE. Given the Arista architecture and depth of buffers there, I wouldn’t see any technical issue leaving the EX4550 hanging off the 7504, just for 1g customers, if you’re worried about burning “expensive” ports. Food for thought, YMMV, etc. -andrew -- Andrew Hoyos [log in to unmask]