After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit. I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch). -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke@mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Having joined the thoughtful discussion late I don't have too much to add but feel that we've certainly gotten to the point where it isn't fair to expect Jay to go around with hat-in-hand hoping for donations to keep us moving forward. I think this third proposal might be our best plan at the moment, everyone will be contributing to their share of reoccurring costs and it covers our biggest capital cost (10G ports) without getting too complicated for commodity 1G connections. We can try this sort of model and see how the math works out, if it doesn't cover our costs we can always opt for something more complicated. Additionally it's unlikely to generate a bank balance large enough to deter donations or make us look like anything more than we are. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:17 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Jay's Third proposal After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit. I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch). -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke@mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: 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
I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants. I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs. If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later. The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people. Remember Metcalfe's law; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote:
After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit.
I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something".
Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years)
So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch).
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist... Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee for dual-stack! Owen On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote:
I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants.
I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs.
If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later.
The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people.
Remember Metcalfe's law;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't
On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote:
After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit.
I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something".
Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years)
So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch).
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: 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
While that helps move towards V6 how does that solve the issue of keeping equipment up to date? On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owend@he.net> wrote:
Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist...
Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee for dual-stack!
Owen
On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote:
I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants.
I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs.
If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later.
The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people.
Remember Metcalfe's law;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't
On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote:
After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit.
I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something".
Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years)
So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch).
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: 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
-- Brian Mort Network Engineer IV (ENA,ENS,ECDP) visit our website: arvig <http://www.arvig.com> (218) 346-8231 brian.mort@arvig.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
The participant fee helps keep the equipment up to date. The discount helps encourage people to deploy technology that will allow the internet to continue to scale and promote the growth of the exchange, bringing additional members paying participant fees. Owen Sent from my iPad On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:45 AM, Brian Mort <brian.mort@ARVIG.COM> wrote:
While that helps move towards V6 how does that solve the issue of keeping equipment up to date?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owend@he.net> wrote: Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist...
Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee for dual-stack!
Owen
On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote:
I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants.
I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs.
If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later.
The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people.
Remember Metcalfe's law;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't
On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote:
After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit.
I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something".
Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years)
So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch).
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: 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
-- Brian Mort Network Engineer IV (ENA,ENS,ECDP) visit our website: arvig (218) 346-8231 brian.mort@arvig.com
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: 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
participants (5)
-
Anthony Anderberg -
Brian Mort -
David Farmer -
Jay Hanke -
Owen DeLong