"Paul Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > > My question was meant at a much higher level - a level where costs are > equal for peering/transit and all the "technical" and the "financial" > homework has been done already.... now I'm the stage of one last meeting > with top level management to explain "peering" and it's magic. These are > mainly non-technical people - so my question to NANOG was for viewpoints > on peering of which hopefully I could reinforce some of my own thoughts > with. Whether or not someone operating at scale isn't the discussion - > and it's funny how many people involved with companies (that are > "operating at scale") have emailed me offline since this discussion > started a few days ago with questions/thoughts and strategy.
if the financials and technicals are similar enough to be factored out, then what you have to look at is possible variance between tactical and strategic cost/benefit ratios. basically this boils down to the cost of lock-in. if you're going to avoid lock-in then you have get your own address space and build out to at least one IXP and then, buy diverse transit. once you have done all that, the cost of also peering is in the noise, whereas the advantage of also peering is noticeable if not always easily measureable. if you're not going to avoid lock-in, then everything you'd need to spend to avoid it can be avoided, and you won't be peering unless it's for purely strategic reasons. -- Paul Vixie
