Getting networks to connect to an ix is Uber expensive in relation to the overall costs. Specifically before critical mass is reached. Getting the first X gig of traffic is a hard problem that takes money to fix. On Apr 19, 2015 7:51 AM, "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> There is a revenue floor where it doesn't matter how much or how little > service is provided, simply having a customer period requires a certain > amount of revenue. > > Route servers, IXP Manager, AS112, route collectors, DNS, etc. all cost > money. > > Maintenance costs money. The organization itself costs money. Upgrades > cost money. Racks cost money. Power costs money. > > I'm sure I've left some things out. > > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:23:53 AM > Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost > > So why is IX peering so expensive? > > Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks > connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a > budget of 240000+ USD a year. > > But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch. > > Why do these guys deserve to be paid that much for so little? > > Recently we had a competitor show up in the form of Netnod. However the > pricing is almost exactly the same, although Netnod tries to deliver > slightly more service. > > Seems to me that this an unsound market. The 40 dix particants should > donate 1000 USD once and get a new layer 2 switch. Why does that not > happen? > > Does not look like it is a local phenomenon either. IX'es all over are way > more expensive than they should be. > > Regards > > Baldur > >
