[152983] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Industry practice for BGP costs - one time or fixed/monthly?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jared Mauch)
Fri May 25 12:14:22 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAJ0+aXYRwZazh6kOD8abkHrZYfzpPqCFZTWddH-dGhTCHYBjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 12:13:33 -0400
To: Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com>
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
There are starting to be a major difference in cost for supporting bgp. Taki=
ng a look at routing table size, many people are going to see troubles aroun=
d 512k routes. Placing you on a device that doesn't need a full table or one=
at all will result in lower capital costs and lower operational costs as fe=
wer features need to be toyed with.
Static routes work on nearly every device :-)
- Jared=20
On May 25, 2012, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Bhatia <me@anuragbhatia.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>=20
>=20
> I have been aggressively looking for deals in servers in Europe for
> anycasting. One thing which surprises me is the "setup costs" for BGP. Few=
> providers quoted additional $50-100 which looks OK but a few of them quote=
d
> as high as $150 *extra every month* just for having BGP (no full routing
> table, but just default route pointing). Is there's any technical logic
> behind such heavy costs? I mean at the end of day we are all talking at
> layer 3 and thus it does not involves any hard connection/physical work.
> What other members pay for BGP setup costs?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Thanks!
>=20
> --=20
>=20
> Anurag Bhatia
> anuragbhatia.com
> or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected
> network!
>=20
> Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> |
> Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>|
> Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>
