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:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 8:46 PM
To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET
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