Re: Peering and Network Cost

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

IX port pricing in the Chicago area has plummeted in the past two or three years. It's gone down... maybe 2/3. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



----- Original Message -----

From: "Tore Anderson" <tore () fud no> 
To: "Mark Tinka" <mark.tinka () seacom mu> 
Cc: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00:53 AM 
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost 

* Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> 

> On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote: 
> > We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so 
> > much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am 
> > certain that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a 
> > regional tier-2 instead, I'd be lowering my total MRC somewhat, 
> > without really reducing connectivity quality to my (former) peers. 
>
> I wouldn't say exchange point prices are stagnant, per se. They may 
> remain the same, but what goes up is the port bandwidth. It's not 
> directly linear, but you get my point. 
>
> Again, the burden is on the peering members to extract the most out of 
> their peering links by having as much peering as possible. 

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. 

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. 

Tore