nanog mailing list archives
Re: Leaving public peering?
From: Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:26:22 -0600
Leo Bicknell wrote:
rate, and that helps offset some of the costs. I've oversimplified, and it's a very complex problem for most providers; however I know many are looking at the fees for peering ports go from being in the noise to a huge part of their cost structure and that doesn't work.
Let's also not forget those who aren't sitting right next to the exchange. I'd love to have better peering, private and public, but there's the additional 300 miles of long haul to consider as well.
Then there's the consideration of redundancy. Do I want redundant feeds to the exchange or do I want to consider my local transits to be the redundancy. Will I be purchasing transit via the exchange link to perform redundant functions for my local transits?
It's always a difficult financial decision, and I've been battling it for years. I want the option for more direct connectivity and more peering options, but there's additional costs which are hard to justify to the bean counters.
Jack (still no dual stacked IPv6 transit due to same issues as above)
Current thread:
- Leaving public peering? Lasher, Donn (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Leo Bicknell (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Jonas Frey (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Patrick W. Gilmore (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Mehmet Akcin (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Henk Steenman (Dec 09)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Jonas Frey (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Jack Bates (Dec 02)
- RE: Leaving public peering? Shon Elliott (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Leo Bicknell (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Mikael Abrahamsson (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Patrick W . Gilmore (Dec 02)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Andy Davidson (Dec 03)
- Re: Leaving public peering? Ken Chase (Dec 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Leaving public peering? Serge Radovcic (Dec 03)