[49502] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Tue Jul 2 11:17:21 2002
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:16:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: alex@yuriev.com
To: Clayton Fiske <clay@bloomcounty.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20020701120618.D73927@bloomcounty.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > 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.
Really? I did not know that the quotes that I get do not say that they give
me a free router and $0 install cost.
> 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 can from the top of my head, without breaking NDA name at least 1
promising local ISP.
> 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.
Peering networks, at this time, have very significant downside effect to
fiancials that I can see, unless you are talking about UUNET, Sprint, AT&T,
Level3, Q and C&W.
Alex
