[119813] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Leaving public peering?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Wed Dec 2 17:29:20 2009
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:26:22 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20091202212020.GA48616@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> rate, and that helps offset some of the costs. I've oversimplified, and
> it's a very complex problem for most providers; however I know many are
> looking at the fees for peering ports go from being in the noise to a
> huge part of their cost structure and that doesn't work.
>
Let's also not forget those who aren't sitting right next to the
exchange. I'd love to have better peering, private and public, but
there's the additional 300 miles of long haul to consider as well.
Then there's the consideration of redundancy. Do I want redundant feeds
to the exchange or do I want to consider my local transits to be the
redundancy. Will I be purchasing transit via the exchange link to
perform redundant functions for my local transits?
It's always a difficult financial decision, and I've been battling it
for years. I want the option for more direct connectivity and more
peering options, but there's additional costs which are hard to justify
to the bean counters.
Jack (still no dual stacked IPv6 transit due to same issues as above)
