[186711] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: interconnection costs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Tue Dec 29 15:50:47 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAPkb-7AohjKYarF8Y7LjzJ0COB4_eSxMvNggbA=v0a5rhx3fTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:48:41 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl
<baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 December 2015 at 03:04, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
>> > Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to
>> do
>> > peering inside a third party colocation?
>>
>> Sure. But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the
>> cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when
>> the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
>>
>
> Also remember that 300 miles of fiber is going to go through a dozen of
> street cabinets to get there.
be sure that you either:
a) plan for a second path for when the backhoe arrives
b) understand that you may slosh 'lots' of traffic 'elsewhere' when A happens
if you don't want to ship/install/etc a device in a cage in 'equinix'
but rather use a Xconnect/fiber provider solution you're moving your
failure domains around a bit.
