-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/23/2012 10:00 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: > > On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote: > >> I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an >> interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is >> nothing new. > > <mini-rant> - ---------------------- > > I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than > what I personally interpret it to mean. > > eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can > place gear" > > Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly > connect to them as needed. > > I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with > Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc. The difference is in the policy. What > you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over > various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you > have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding. > > </mini-rant> - --------------------------- Correct, I meant to say private peering as opposed to settlement-free.
> > Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right > business decision. If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might > as well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO. You're unlikely to be > using the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to > properly reflect your 95% or whatnot. > > - Jared - ---------------------- I understand, I'm trying to factor in cost of peering (transport, equipment, cross-connect, colocation, equipment cost) of buying transit vs private peering. regards, /virendra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iF4EAREIAAYFAk9GhVsACgkQ3HuimOHfh+HqFgD+L2WYr2Tt1ZRY+Z2AAVDpX00N bwNSXKLbnzjy8Ol5b2QA/AiL3NbesEoZy901tBW7TAdAzPOUK8W9a4rnhRakDk8B =acfM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
