nanog mailing list archives
Re: interconnection costs
From: James Bensley <jwbensley () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 15:30:56 +0000
On 23 Dec 2015 20:06, "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi () cs uoregon edu> wrote:
All the costs of HW, SW, personnel, administration, and perhaps
transmission between colos (including remote peering, being waved to another location, tethering) would be the same, right? Usually yes but with transit you are paying for global connectivity/reachability, for an extreme comparison, I only need to exchange 50mbps of data with Facebook before they will peering with me (last time I checked), I'm not going to put a 100Mbps link into a port that can do 10G. So a direct transit feed is more commercially viable for me as a consumer than private or public peering unless a particular business demand can cover the cost risk of peering. James.
Current thread:
- Re: interconnection costs, (continued)
- Re: interconnection costs Baldur Norddahl (Dec 22)
- Re: interconnection costs James Bensley (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Reza Motamedi (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Baldur Norddahl (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Reza Motamedi (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Valdis . Kletnieks (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Baldur Norddahl (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Christopher Morrow (Dec 29)
- Re: interconnection costs Baldur Norddahl (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs Faisal Imtiaz (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs James Bensley (Dec 31)
- Re: interconnection costs Bill Norton (Dec 23)
- Re: interconnection costs (off list) Josh Luthman (Dec 22)
- Re: interconnection costs (off list) Faisal Imtiaz (Dec 22)
- Re: interconnection costs (off list) Mike Hammett (Dec 22)
- Re: interconnection costs (off list) Faisal Imtiaz (Dec 22)