[141305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Why don't ISPs peer with everyone?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Palmer)
Tue Jun 7 12:15:20 2011
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 01:05:49 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <F3318834F1F89D46857972DD4B411D700519D3DF37@exchange>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 10:15:48AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:jlewis@lewis.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:00 AM
>
> -snip-
>
> I manage a network that's primarily a hosting network. There's a similar
> hosting network at the other end of the building. We both have multiple
> gigs of transit. We don't peer with each other. Perhaps we should,
> because the cost of the connection would be negligible (I think we already
> have multiple fiber pairs between our suites), but looking at my sampled
> netflow data, I'm guessing we average about 100kbit/s or less traffic in
> each direction between us. At that low a level, is it even worth the time
> and trouble to coordinate setting up a peering connection, much less
> tying up a gigE port at each end?
> -----
>
> 100kbit/s at <1ms is better than 100kbit/s at > 1ms.
True, but the point being made is: how *much* better? Is it enough better
to justify the cost of installing and maintaining another peering link?
- Matt
--
"Ah, the beauty of OSS. Hundreds of volunteers worldwide volunteering their
time inventing and implementing new, exciting ways for software to suck."
-- Toni Lassila, in the Monastery
