|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> In-Reply-To: <C97F73E15F1F0D48A3AC0C423F8C221A01F0B904@rancor.ad.newedgenetworks.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:52:10 -0500 To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Lasher, Donn wrote: > This year I've been seeing what appears to be an increasing trend = among > service providers.. making the decision to leave public peering. I'm > sure others on this list as seeing that trend as well. I have a couple > of guesses, but I'm curious , and I wanted to get some other thoughts = as > to the "why". >=20 >=20 >=20 > I don't have exact numbers, but off the top of my head, I'd guess > somewhere around two dozen of our peers have left various peering > exchanges. Quick couple I checked still appear to be operational as a > company, so I'm willing to remove "death" as a valid reason. I have some "hard numbers" from LINX. LINX receives 1 new member = request per week. There were a handful of cancelations in the last = year. Doesn't seem to me like a lot of people are leaving public = peering. It is not surprising that some networks turn down their peering - just = the opposite. Business models change, special offers pop up, etc. = Someone is going to turn down their peering. Instead of looking at the = outliers, look at the fact more ASes are peering in more places than = ever before. Peering on the Internet is robust, growing, and happy. --=20 TTFN, patrick > I realized that paid transit is down at almost obscene levels, but is > that enough of a reason to increase hop-count, latencies, etc? >=20 >=20 >=20 > Why disconnect from public mostly-free peering? >=20 >=20 >=20 > -donn >=20 >=20 >=20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |