[49449] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ukyo Kuonji)
Mon Jul 1 15:59:03 2002
From: "Ukyo Kuonji" <kawaii_iinazuke@hotmail.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 15:51:58 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>From: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
>
>Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit.
But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary
beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for
peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peering was a great cost savines.
Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
$50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the router,
plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthly costs for your OC-48 into
the router... What's the true cost of peering?
An OC48 to PAIX, and let's say you serve all your traffic needs from there,
and ignore connection charges, or an OC48 to a transit provider at $50 a
meg? I'm pretty sure that the peering model does not hold up as well as it
should.
Now... Do I believe that there is added benefit to peering? Yes, of
course, but not nearly what it used to be. If it's a benefit to your
customers, and helps increase your number of customers, then it may still be
a good thing.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
