The issue is there are going to be more and more networks that are buying these peering services that don't always know what they are... Either by services, or because 'someone told me to'... Its not always those in the know that buy these things... Sometimes it's networks that DON'T know. 

I understand the point a little better now.  I would say it depends on the specific type of CDN.  The more traditional ones like Cloudflare and Akamai it would not be a huge disincentive because they market themselves based on how close/low latency they are to the end user.  Other CDNs that are delivering more of their own content like Netflix/Google would be more grateful for the free transport, and care less about the added latency (assuming no loss). 

-----Original Message-----
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Laager
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 8:46 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy

On 3/24/22 18:00, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
> As for a disincentive for CDN's to connect, I have only seen the opposite.  Most CDN's will only accept a connection to the core.  The only time I have seen them connect to a remote was for a secondary connection to gain switch diversity.

I wasn't talking about CDNs connecting to remotes. The concern, or at
least how I understood it, was: Imagine we put a MICE extension in city
X. In the immediate term, that's great, as now networks in city X can
get content from Minneapolis CDNs. But in the longer-term, it may create
a disincentive for CDNs to go to city X.

Counter-point: Whether CDNs come to city X is not our problem.

--
Richard