[179495] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering and Network Cost
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Wed Apr 15 15:12:50 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 13:33:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua>
In-Reply-To: <552EADA1.6000704@netassist.ua>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Very true. I left it as I did given that I expect a similar profile from ot=
hers in North America... on NANOG.=20
Basically, wherever your region's streaming video or application updates co=
me from. ;-)=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua>=20
To: nanog@nanog.org=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:27:45 PM=20
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost=20
Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC=20
node ;)=20
It is varying from location to location. For example here in Ukraine we=20
(still) have 1st place for traffic amount from Vkontakte (mostly music=20
streams), second from EX.ua (movie store), but almost none NetFlix, Hulu=20
or Amazon. And you can't get both of them in a good quality neither at=20
IXes, nor at Tier1.=20
I think in another locations, for example in India, traffic profile will=20
be different from both of us, and have some local specific as well.=20
On 04/15/15 20:58, Mike Hammett wrote:=20
> It also depends on traffic makeup. Huge amounts of eyeball traffic go to =
(well, come from) NetFlix (a third) and Google, FaceBook, Hulu, Amazon, etc=
. (another third). It's comparable price to peer off those few huge sources=
of traffic and buy better transit than you would have than to just buy che=
ap transit.=20
>=20
> A lot of people tend to forget there are thousands of independent ISPs ou=
t there, usually in areas where there aren't a breadth of providers in the =
first place. Most could get buy with a single GigE (or even less).=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----=20
>=20
> From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua>=20
> To: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:50:41 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost=20
>=20
> Hi Roderick,=20
>=20
> transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful=20
> economy on small channels. If you don't live in=20
> Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major=
=20
> IX. That's the magic.=20
>=20
> In large scale peering is still efficient. It is efficient on local=20
> traffic which is often huge.=20
>=20
> On 04/15/15 17:28, Rod Beck wrote:=20
>> Hi,=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> As you all know, transit costs in the wholesale market today a few perce=
nt of what it did in 2000. I assume that most of that decline is due to a m=
odified version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics costs decline 50% ev=
ery 18 months) and the advent of maverick players like Cogent that broker c=
ozy oligopoly pricing.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> But I also wondering whether the advent of widespread peering (promiscuo=
us?) among the Tier 2 players (buy transit and peer) has played a role. In =
2000 peering was still an exclusive club and in contrast today Tier 2 playe=
rs often have hundreds of peers. Peering should reduce costs and also deman=
d in the wholesale IP market. Supply increases and demand falls.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> I thank you in advance for any insights.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Regards,=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> - R.=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Roderick Beck=20
>> Sales Director/Europe and the Americas=20
>> Hibernia Networks=20
>>=20
>> This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the =
addressee(s) named herein and may be proprietary and/or legally privileged.=
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notif=
ied that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any =
attachments thereto, without the prior written permission of the sender is =
strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediatel=
y telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy a=
nd any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contra=
cts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTRA=
CT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software virus=
es that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has =
taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept l=
iability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. Y=
ou should carry=20
> out your=20
>=20
> own virus checks before opening any attachment.=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
