[179514] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering and Network Cost
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edward Dore)
Thu Apr 16 11:10:45 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Edward Dore <edward.dore@freethought-internet.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20150416090053.4c01330c@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 16:10:46 +0100
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 16 Apr 2015, at 08:00, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
> * Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
>=20
>> On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
>>> much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am
>>> certain that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a
>>> regional tier-2 instead, I'd be lowering my total MRC somewhat,
>>> without really reducing connectivity quality to my (former) peers.
>>=20
>> I wouldn't say exchange point prices are stagnant, per se. They may
>> remain the same, but what goes up is the port bandwidth. It's not
>> directly linear, but you get my point.
>>=20
>> Again, the burden is on the peering members to extract the most out =
of
>> their peering links by having as much peering as possible.
>=20
> You appear to be assuming that an IP transit port is more expensive
> then an IXP port with the same speed. That doesn't seem to always be
> the case anymore, at least not in all parts of the world, and I expect
> this trend to continue - transit prices seems to go down almost on a
> monthly basis, while the price lists of the two closest IXPs to where
> I'm sitting are dated 2011 and 2013, respectively.
>=20
> Even if the transit port itself remains slightly more expensive than
> the IXP port like in the example Baldur showed, the no-peering
> alternative might still be cheaper overall because even if you're
> peering most of your traffic you'll still need to pay a nonzero amount
> for a (smaller or less utilised) transit port anyway.
>=20
> Tore
Pricing at LINX here in the UK has definitely dropped over the past few =
years.
Back in 2011, the membership fee was =A31500/year and it's now =
=A31200/year.
1G ports were =A3391/month on the first London LAN and =A3335/month on =
the second London LAN. They're now free on both LANs for the first port =
and then =A3270/month and =A3180/month respectively for additional =
ports.
You can also get a free 1G port on each of the Manchester UK, Cardiff =
UK, Edinburgh UK and North Virginia/Washington DC USA LANs as part of =
the same membership fee (none of these additional LANs existed in 2011).
10G ports were =A31463/month on the first London LAN and =A31250/month =
on the second London LAN. They're now =A31030/month and =A3785/month =
respectively.
So that's what, a 20% reduction in membership fees and a 30% or higher =
(depending on the service) reduction in port fees in 4 years?
I don't have any quantifiable data on what has happened to IP transit =
costs over the same period, but for a point comparison I'd say that off =
the top of my head you can get a 1G CDR on a 10G port from a tier-1 =
provider in London for approximately the same cost as a 10G port at LINX =
these days, maybe slightly cheaper.
Edward Dore=20
Freethought Internet=20=
