[49436] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Fiske)
Mon Jul 1 15:13:38 2002
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:06:18 -0700
From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10207011333450.1067-100000@s1.yuriev.com>; from alex@yuriev.com on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:36:00PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:36:00PM -0400, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
>
> > Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> > operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
>
> If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
> depreciation) comes to $400 per mbit/sec and via a promisig local ISP you
> can get transit to UUNET at $200 per mbit/sec, your costs will decrease.
> Just because the IP is free with peering does not mean that it costs $0 to
> peer.
Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit. This may hold
true to some degree for a small-ish network, but probably not for a
larger one. Even factoring in depreciation, line cards, etc, I would
imagine you won't find OC3 transit in 4 cities from any ISP to be as
cheap as OC3 peering in 4 cities, for example. Add to that the chance
that, as a larger network, you'll probably be getting your pipes at
volume discounts.
I never meant to imply that peering is 0-cost. I just don't agree with
the blanket statement that peering (or lack thereof) has no financial
impact.
-c
