On 16/Apr/15 09:00, Tore Anderson wrote: > You appear to be assuming that an IP transit port is more expensive > then an IXP port with the same speed. That doesn't seem to always be > the case anymore, at least not in all parts of the world, and I expect > this trend to continue - transit prices seems to go down almost on a > monthly basis, while the price lists of the two closest IXPs to where > I'm sitting are dated 2011 and 2013, respectively.
Agreed. > > Even if the transit port itself remains slightly more expensive than > the IXP port like in the example Baldur showed, the no-peering > alternative might still be cheaper overall because even if you're > peering most of your traffic you'll still need to pay a nonzero amount > for a (smaller or less utilised) transit port anyway. Agreed again. Mark.
