[179533] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering and Network Cost
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Fri Apr 17 07:51:16 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:51:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5530E160.9060207@netassist.ua>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Transit should cost more than peering and should never cost little more tha=
n the cost of a cross connect or a switch, given the load of additional res=
ponsibilities. I counter that if peering is cheaper than transit, you need =
to talk to your IX about it's cost models.=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: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:33:04 AM=20
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost=20
If you have so much difference in price of IX connectivity (in general,=20
including cabling, DWDM to one of major IX, colo, etc) - this only mean=20
you should have a long talk with your current IP transit sales. Or just=20
change it to another one.=20
On 04/15/15 21:45, Mike Hammett wrote:=20
> (Reply to thread, not necessarily myself.)=20
>=20
> If you can pull a third of your traffic off at the cost of a cross connec=
t and another third at the cost of an IX port, now you can spend a buck or =
two a meg on what's left. Yes, I understand the cost of a cross connect or =
IX port is the $/megabit you're actually using and not $/megabit of capacit=
y.=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: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>=20
> To: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua>=20
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org=20
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:33:35 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost=20
>=20
> Very true. I left it as I did given that I expect a similar profile from =
others in North America... on NANOG.=20
>=20
> Basically, wherever your region's streaming video or application updates =
come from. ;-)=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 1:27:45 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost=20
>=20
> Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC=
=20
> node ;)=20
>=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
>=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
>=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, et=
c. (another third). It's comparable price to peer off those few huge source=
s of traffic and buy better transit than you would have than to just buy ch=
eap transit.=20
>>=20
>> A lot of people tend to forget there are thousands of independent ISPs o=
ut 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 perc=
ent of what it did in 2000. I assume that most of that decline is due to a =
modified version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics costs decline 50% e=
very 18 months) and the advent of maverick players like Cogent that broker =
cozy oligopoly pricing.=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> But I also wondering whether the advent of widespread peering (promiscu=
ous?) 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 play=
ers often have hundreds of peers. Peering should reduce costs and also dema=
nd 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 noti=
fied 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 immediate=
ly telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy =
and any copy of this e-mail, and any printout thereof. All documents, contr=
acts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO CONTR=
ACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viru=
ses that could damage your own computer system. While Hibernia Networks has=
taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot accept =
liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. =
You should carr=20
y=20
>=20
>> out your=20
>>=20
>> own virus checks before opening any attachment.=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
