On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:27 PM Aaron Wendel <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> wrote:

I think the landscape of peering is changing. Traditionally peering
enables lower latency and better performance by keeping local traffic
local. While that's still the case, I see more and more people looking
at remote peering as a way to gain more granularity in traffic
engineering. There's a large demand in the KC market for peering
outside the market for just that.

SIX is just about up in KC (F You Lumen... 6 months to do an XC in your
own facility?), DE-CIX is coming to KC (active but not announced yet)
and others are in the works. There were a lot of discussions at the
KCIX table about how these exchanges coming into KC would affect the
local peering. The answer seems to be, "Not at all." The use cases
between local peering and remote peering are different enough that they
can coexist without market dilution.

In the future, I believe IXs will be seen more like mini, focused ISPs
used by organizations looking to branch out closer to the edge where
their customers are concentrated.

Aaron

On 3/24/2022 11:53 PM, Reid Fishler wrote:
> The answer is somewhere in the middle. We do whats best for the
> exchange, and for the internet in general. There are MANY things where
> this is what was done by the community. Honest question...if someone
> wants to put an extension in Rio, Brazil, do we let them? How about in
> South Africa? Is there a line? An exchange has a purpose, and thats to
> get everyone local to each other, on one fabric...otherwise we are
> just making Cogents IX thing they sell, or any one of the number of
> global fabrics. At SOME point we need to say enough is enough. I am
> NOT saying we are there yet, but to allow EVERYTHING is a bit too much
> in the other direction.
>
> Reid
>
>
> Reid
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:44 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
>
> I completely agree that the number of people who know very little
> about BGP is growing quickly, the real question is how do you deal
> with this problem. Do you not permit things across the board
> because of this, meaning that the opportunity is lost for the
> people that understand what they are doing? Or do you put as many
> reasonable precautions in place so that when someone screws up, it
> mostly just impacts them, and all of the other members maintain
> granular control?
>
> *From:*MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On
> Behalf Of *Reid Fishler
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:12 PM
> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET
> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy
>
> 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.
>
> Reid
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 10:04 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
> <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
> <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>
>
>
>
> --
> Reid Fishler
> Senior Director
> Hurricane Electric
> +1-510-580-4178
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
> <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>
>

--
================================================================
Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
================================================================