Re: transit and peering costs projections

[Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net>]

Exactly.  Speed x distance = cost.  This is _exactly_ why IXPs get set up.  To avoid backhauling bandwidth from Dallas, 
or wherever.  Loss, latency, out-of-order delivery, and jitter.  All lower when you source your bandwidth closer.

                                -Bill



> On Oct 15, 2023, at 06:12, Tim Burke <tim () mid net> wrote:
>
> It’s better for customer experience to keep it local instead of adding 200 miles to the route. All of the competition 
> hauls all of their traffic up to Dallas, so we easily have a nice 8-10ms latency advantage by keeping transit and 
> peering as close to the customer as possible.
>
> Plus, you can’t forget to mention another ~$10k MRC per pair in DF costs to get up to Dallas, not including colo, 
> that we can spend on more transit or better gear!
>
> > On Oct 14, 2023, at 23:03, Ryan Hamel <ryan () rkhtech org> wrote:
> >
> >  Why not place the routers in Dallas, aggregate the transit, IXP, and PNI's there, and backhaul it over redundant 
> > dark fiber with DWDM waves or 400G OpenZR?
> >
> > Ryan
> >
> > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org () nanog org> on behalf of Tim Burke <tim () mid net>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 8:45 PM
> > To: Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com>
> > Cc: Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain () lists bufferbloat 
> > net>; libreqos <libreqos () lists bufferbloat net>; NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> > Subject: Re: transit and peering costs projections   Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please 
> > take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
> >
> >
> > I would say that a 1Gbit IP transit in a carrier neutral DC can be had for a good bit less than $900 on the 
> > wholesale market.
> >
> > Sadly, IXP’s are seemingly turning into a pay to play game, with rates almost costing as much as transit in many 
> > cases after you factor in loop costs.
> >
> > For example, in the Houston market (one of the largest and fastest growing regions in the US!), we do not have a 
> > major IX, so to get up to Dallas it’s several thousand for a 100g wave, plus several thousand for a 100g port on one 
> > of those major IXes. Or, a better option, we can get a 100g flat internet transit for just a little bit more.
> >
> > Fortunately, for us as an eyeball network, there are a good number of major content networks that are allowing for 
> > private peering in markets like Houston for just the cost of a cross connect and a QSFP if you’re in the right DC, 
> > with Google and some others being the outliers.
> >
> > So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to get to the others (since it’s about as much as transporting IXP from 
> > Dallas), and hoping someone at Google finally sees Houston as more than a third rate city hanging off of Dallas. Or… 
> > someone finally brings a worthwhile IX to Houston that gets us more than peering to Kansas City. Yeah, I think the 
> > former is more likely. 😊
> >
> > See y’all in San Diego this week,
> > Tim
> >
> > On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote:
> > > This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data
> > > stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data?
> > >
> > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrpeering.net%2Fwhite-papers%2FInternet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nQeWrGi%2BblMmtiG9u7SdF3JOi1h9Fni7xXo%2FusZRopA%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > > I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at about
> > > $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere?
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful,
> > > states without them suffer, and I also find the concept of doing micro
> > > IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achievable with cheap gear.
> > > Finer grained cross connects between telco and ISP and IXP would lower
> > > latencies across town quite hugely...
> > >
> > > PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bundling 3
> > > BGP AS numbers at a time, as of the end of this year, also.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Oct 30: 
> > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnetdevconf.info%2F0x17%2Fnews%2Fthe-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ROLgtoeiBgfAG40UZqS8Zd8vMK%2B0HQB7RV%2FhQRvIcFM%3D&reserved=0
> > > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP