[Napla] Servicios en los NAPs

[Bill Woodcock]

      On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Yuri Herrera B. wrote:
    > Siempre que estos precios estén bien calculados para poder, no sólo 
    > lograr una buena operación, sino tener también capacidad de 
    > inversión futura (para renovación de equipos por ejemplo).

Well, I understand that this seems sensible and businesslike and 
responsible, but it also means holding money, and forecasting future 
costs, and those are both very expensive things to do.  Far more expensive 
than replacing hardware, in the long run.

I'd strongly encourage you to look at the Seattle exchange as an example 
of a well-run IX.  They offer 100/Gig/10Gig ports at no cost, and have 
_never_ charged anyone anything, in about ten years of operation.  They 
pass a lot of traffic (several participants with multi-gigabit sustained 
traffic), and don't feel a need to have a savings account.  Here's 
something to think about:  If you've saved up money, and need a new 
chassis-based GigE switch, how long would it take you, between deciding 
that you needed one, and having it show up in your office?  You call the 
vendor, get referred to a local dealer, leave a message, get a call back 
from a salesperson, haggle over the price, fax over a purchase order, wait 
for them to check your credit, they order it from the manufacturer, it 
comes through customs...  What, two or three weeks, at a minimum, right?
The last few times the Seattle exchange has needed an upgrade, they've 
never had to wait more than THIRTY MINUTES for the switch to show up.
When something's needed, they tell the IX mailing list what they need, 
and someone brings one over.  Because they're offering a good value to 
their members, and their members understand how important that is to their 
businesses.  No need for fees, or a bank account, or deciding how much to 
charge.  It's a much cleaner, simpler, more efficient way of running 
things.  And it's much easier for participants to trust them, if the 
participants don't have to trust them with their money.

Seattle is an excellent example, and if you look at the very 
well-thought-out recent reorganization of the Brazilian IXPs, you'll find 
that it follows (and extends upon) Seattle's model.  Frederico Neves went 
to last year's Seattle IX annual meeting and talked with the members 
there, before returning to Sao Paulo and redesigning their IX topology and 
policies.  If anyone's interested in a field-trip, the next Seattle IX 
annual meeting is April 25.  :-) 

    > Si bien la utilización de un puerto de mayor capacidad no tendría un 
    > precio extra, se debería de cumplir con el requisito de llegar a
    > cierto nivel mínimo de tráfico para tener el derecho de acceder a dicho
    > puerto.

Yes, exactly.  It does no one any good to have an expensive port sitting 
idle...  Whether by policy or by price, the ports need to be allocated to 
those who can use them most effectively, since that's what creates value 
for all the participants collectively.

                                -Bill