Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?

[Zach Underwood <zach () zachunderwood me>]

Agreed, Microsoft process is painful with forced to use the azure
interface. Meta and cloudflare have nice portals that use peeringdb for
auth.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2024, 12:03 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

> And so many of those bilateral processes are just simply broken.
>
>
>
> -----Mike HammettIntelligent Computing SolutionsMidwest Internet
> ExchangeThe Brothers WISP
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Will Hargrave <will () harg net>
> To: Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>
> Cc: nanog () nanog org
> Sent: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 11:22:34 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?
>
> On 5 Nov 2024, at 16:56, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> > > Especially so if a few of the large content providers continue to pull
> > > back from route servers and such.
> > Content providers aren't leaving IXP's completely. They're still there,
> > still paying monthly for ports and XCs. Still doing bilateral peering
> over
> > the IX. There's no revenue hit to an IXP for a CDN to de-peer off the
> route
> > servers.
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I don’t really think your last statement is true.
>
> UK, and London in particular, is quite a dynamic market. At LONAP we see
> plenty of networks connect and see an immediate “quick win” of traffic by
> connection to our route-servers, where adoption among the membership is
> something like 85-90%.
>
> If an operator decides to replace those RS sessions with a (often
> intractable) portal to request bilateral sessions - or worse, email - that
> immediate traffic benefit is lost. That can affect the value the IXP
> provides to its members.
>
> Will