ops.lists at gmail
Apr 7, 2012, 8:42 PM
Post #11 of 15
fair enough. i was thinking smaller and more localized exchanges rather than the big ones
On 08-Apr-2012, at 3:46, "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs [at] seastrom> wrote:
> Actually, Suresh, I disagree. It depends on the
> facility/country/continent, the cost of joining the local IX fabric at
> a reasonable bandwidth, your cost model, and your transit costs. In
> short, it's not 1999 anymore, and peering is not automatically the
> right answer from a purely fiscal perspective (though it may be from a
> technical perspective; see below).
> At certain IXes that have a perfect storm of high priced ports and a
> good assortment of carriers with sufficiently high quality service and
> aggressive pricing, a good negotiator can fairly easily find himself
> in a position where the actual cost per megabit of traffic moved on
> peered bandwidth exceeds the cost of traffic moved on transit _by an
> order of magnitude_. That's without even factoring in the (low)
> maintenance cost of having a bunch of BGP sessions around or upgraded
> routers or whatever.
> Sometimes making the AS path as short as possible makes a lot of sense
> (e.g. when trying to get an anycast network to do the right thing),
> but assumptions that peering results in lower costs are less true
> every day.
> Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists [at] gmail> writes:
>> what does it cost you to peer, versus what does it cost you to not peer?
>> if you are at the same ix the costs of peering are very low indeed
>> On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
>>> Hello everyone
>>> I am curious to know how small ISPs plan peering with other interested
>>> parties. E.g if ISP A is connected to ISP C via big backbone ISP B, and say
>>> A and C both have open peering policy and assuming the exist in same
>>> exchange or nearby. Now at this point is there is any "minimum bandwidth"
>>> considerations? Say if A and C have 1Gbps + of flowing traffic - very
>>> likely peering would be good idea to save transit costs to B. But if A and
>>> C have very low levels - does it still makes sense? Does peering costs
>>> anything if ISPs are in same exchange? Does at low traffic level it makes
>>> more sense to keep on reaching other ISPs via big transit provider?
>>> Anurag Bhatia
>>> or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
>>> Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia>
>>> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com
>> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists [at] gmail)