[44507] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a question about the economics of peering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R. Dick)
Fri Nov 30 12:05:27 2001
From: "David R. Dick" <drd@sii-nh.com>
Message-Id: <200111301702.MAA21748@gateway.sii-nh.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 12:02:05 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.WNT.4.33.0111301137160.1456-100000@phosphorus.hq.nac.net> from "Alex Rubenstein" at Nov 30, 2001 11:52:28 AM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> Today, I was approached by *unnamed-ethernet-extension-company*. They
> extend ethernets between several US and UK peering exchanges.
>
> While speaking with them today, thier engineer and I got into a little bit
> of a disagreement as to why people peer with each other at public exchange
> points. My belief is that generally speaking, networks meet at public
> exchange points (such as MAE-*, LINX, AMSIX, AADS, etc) is to exchange
> traffic with each other more economically (read: save money).
>
> His belief is that people will pay a premium to get to an exchange point,
> because it's worth paying a premium to have 'less hops' between two
> networks.
The problem with this idea is that public exchange points need
to be *avoided* when they get too congested. People may start
out trying to minimize number of hops, but I think they eventually
try to minimize total latency.
>
> Essentially, he said that paying more for peering that for transit is
> typical, and to be expected, and most people accept this.
>
> Whats the common opinion on this?
>
>
>
