fair enough. i was thinking smaller and more localized exchanges rather than the big ones
--srs (iPad) On 08-Apr-2012, at 3:46, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote: > > Actually, Suresh, I disagree. It depends on the > facility/country/continent, the cost of joining the local IX fabric at > a reasonable bandwidth, your cost model, and your transit costs. In > short, it's not 1999 anymore, and peering is not automatically the > right answer from a purely fiscal perspective (though it may be from a > technical perspective; see below). > > At certain IXes that have a perfect storm of high priced ports and a > good assortment of carriers with sufficiently high quality service and > aggressive pricing, a good negotiator can fairly easily find himself > in a position where the actual cost per megabit of traffic moved on > peered bandwidth exceeds the cost of traffic moved on transit _by an > order of magnitude_. That's without even factoring in the (low) > maintenance cost of having a bunch of BGP sessions around or upgraded > routers or whatever. > > Sometimes making the AS path as short as possible makes a lot of sense > (e.g. when trying to get an anycast network to do the right thing), > but assumptions that peering results in lower costs are less true > every day. > > -r > > Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> writes: > >> what does it cost you to peer, versus what does it cost you to not peer? >> >> if you are at the same ix the costs of peering are very low indeed >> >> On Saturday, April 7, 2012, Anurag Bhatia wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> >>> >>> I am curious to know how small ISPs plan peering with other interested >>> parties. E.g if ISP A is connected to ISP C via big backbone ISP B, and say >>> A and C both have open peering policy and assuming the exist in same >>> exchange or nearby. Now at this point is there is any "minimum bandwidth" >>> considerations? Say if A and C have 1Gbps + of flowing traffic - very >>> likely peering would be good idea to save transit costs to B. But if A and >>> C have very low levels - does it still makes sense? Does peering costs >>> anything if ISPs are in same exchange? Does at low traffic level it makes >>> more sense to keep on reaching other ISPs via big transit provider? >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Anurag Bhatia >>> anuragbhatia.com >>> or simply - http://[2001:470:26:78f::5] if you are on IPv6 connected >>> network! >>> >>> Twitter: @anurag_bhatia <https://twitter.com/#!/anurag_bhatia> >>> Linkedin: http://linkedin.anuragbhatia.com >>> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
