Re: Peering and Network Cost

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

Transit should cost more than peering and should never cost little more than the cost of a cross connect or a switch, 
given the load of additional responsibilities. I counter that if peering is cheaper than transit, you need to talk to 
your IX about it's cost models. 




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

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

From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul () netassist ua> 
To: nanog () nanog org 
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:33:04 AM 
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost 

If you have so much difference in price of IX connectivity (in general, 
including cabling, DWDM to one of major IX, colo, etc) - this only mean 
you should have a long talk with your current IP transit sales. Or just 
change it to another one. 

On 04/15/15 21:45, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> (Reply to thread, not necessarily myself.) 
>
> If you can pull a third of your traffic off at the cost of a cross connect and another third at the cost of an IX 
> port, now you can spend a buck or two a meg on what's left. Yes, I understand the cost of a cross connect or IX port 
> is the $/megabit you're actually using and not $/megabit of capacity. 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
> To: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul () netassist ua> 
> Cc: nanog () nanog org 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:33:35 PM 
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost 
>
> Very true. I left it as I did given that I expect a similar profile from others in North America... on NANOG. 
>
> Basically, wherever your region's streaming video or application updates come from. ;-) 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul () netassist ua> 
> To: nanog () nanog org 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:27:45 PM 
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost 
>
> Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC 
> node ;) 
>
> It is varying from location to location. For example here in Ukraine we 
> (still) have 1st place for traffic amount from Vkontakte (mostly music 
> streams), second from EX.ua (movie store), but almost none NetFlix, Hulu 
> or Amazon. And you can't get both of them in a good quality neither at 
> IXes, nor at Tier1. 
>
> I think in another locations, for example in India, traffic profile will 
> be different from both of us, and have some local specific as well. 
>
> On 04/15/15 20:58, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> > It also depends on traffic makeup. Huge amounts of eyeball traffic go to (well, come from) NetFlix (a third) and 
> > Google, FaceBook, Hulu, Amazon, etc. (another third). It's comparable price to peer off those few huge sources of 
> > traffic and buy better transit than you would have than to just buy cheap transit. 
> >
> > A lot of people tend to forget there are thousands of independent ISPs out there, usually in areas where there 
> > aren't a breadth of providers in the first place. Most could get buy with a single GigE (or even less). 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- 
> > Mike Hammett 
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> > http://www.ics-il.com 
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >
> > From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul () netassist ua> 
> > To: nanog () nanog org 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:50:41 PM 
> > Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost 
> >
> > Hi Roderick, 
> >
> > transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful 
> > economy on small channels. If you don't live in 
> > Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major 
> > IX. That's the magic. 
> >
> > In large scale peering is still efficient. It is efficient on local 
> > traffic which is often huge. 
> >
> > On 04/15/15 17:28, Rod Beck wrote: 
> > > Hi, 
> > >
> > >
> > > As you all know, transit costs in the wholesale market today a few percent of what it did in 2000. I assume that 
> > > most of that decline is due to a modified version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics costs decline 50% every 18 
> > > months) and the advent of maverick players like Cogent that broker cozy oligopoly pricing. 
> > >
> > >
> > > But I also wondering whether the advent of widespread peering (promiscuous?) among the Tier 2 players (buy transit 
> > > and peer) has played a role. In 2000 peering was still an exclusive club and in contrast today Tier 2 players often 
> > > have hundreds of peers. Peering should reduce costs and also demand in the wholesale IP market. Supply increases 
> > > and demand falls. 
> > >
> > >
> > > I thank you in advance for any insights. 
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, 
> > >
> > >
> > > - R. 
> > >
> > >
> > > Roderick Beck 
> > > Sales Director/Europe and the Americas 
> > > Hibernia Networks 
> > >
> > > This e-mail and any attachments thereto is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may be 
> > > proprietary and/or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby 
> > > notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email, and any attachments thereto, without the 
> > > prior written permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please 
> > > immediately telephone or e-mail the sender and permanently delete the original copy and any copy of this e-mail, 
> > > and any printout thereof. All documents, contracts or agreements referred or attached to this e-mail are SUBJECT TO 
> > > CONTRACT. The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software viruses that could damage your own 
> > > computer system. While Hibernia Networks has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk, we cannot 
> > > accept liability for any damage that you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should carr 
y 
> > out your 
> >
> > own virus checks before opening any attachment. 
> > >