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" <na...@ics-il.net> > To: "Max Tulyev" <max...@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" <max...@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" <max...@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 carry > >> out your >> >> own virus checks before opening any attachment. >>> >> >> >> > > > >
