virendra.rode at gmail
Feb 23, 2012, 10:28 AM
Post #9 of 12
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 02/23/2012 10:00 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote:
>> I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an
>> interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is
>> nothing new.
> I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than what I personally interpret it to mean.
> eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can place gear"
> Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly connect to them as needed.
> I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc. The difference is in the policy. What you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding.
Correct, I meant to say private peering as opposed to settlement-free.
> Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right business decision. If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might as well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO. You're unlikely to be using the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to properly reflect your 95% or whatnot.
> - Jared
I understand, I'm trying to factor in cost of peering (transport,
equipment, cross-connect, colocation, equipment cost) of buying transit
vs private peering.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----