On 5/23/15 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com
Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
and 2) does anyone measure cross town latency. If we lived in a
- Original Message -
From: Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com
Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
and 2) does anyone measure cross town latency. If we lived in a
world where skype/voip/etc transited the
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
you are willing to pay).
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:52 AM, James Bensley
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:40:23 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window
On 17 April 2015 at 16:53, Justin Wilson - MTIN li...@mtin.net wrote:
Peering and peering on an exchange are two different things. Peering at an
exchange has several benefits other than the simple cost of transit. If you
are in a large data center which charges fees for cross connects a
but we're
keeping our port for the connectivity improvement.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: May 21, 2015 8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
As a small ISP, I'll peer with everybody
On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
and 2) does anyone measure cross town latency. If we lived in a
world where skype/voip/etc transited the local town only,
what sort
On Thursday, May 21, 2015, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
and 2) does anyone measure cross town latency. If we lived in
On 21 May 2015 at 13:40, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote:
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
you
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Max Tulyev max...@netassist.ua wrote:
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
That's generally good idea, but average TCP session speed depends not
only your side of connection, but another side as well.
On 18.04.15 07:58, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 17/Apr/15 15:05, Max Tulyev wrote:
One more interesting thing.
If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact
On 21/Apr/15 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote:
That's generally good idea, but average TCP session speed depends not
only your side of connection, but another side as well.
It was always best effort :-).
Mark.
Choose another IX to peer. Or even make your own ;)
Kiev have 3 major IXes, and price is about $100 for 10GE port.
On 19.04.15 12:23, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays
On 21/Apr/15 11:58, Max Tulyev wrote:
Choose another IX to peer. Or even make your own ;)
Kiev have 3 major IXes, and price is about $100 for 10GE port.
Switch port costs will be governed by how the exchange point is run.
Low or no running costs will, theoretically, yield cheaper ports.
On Apr 19, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
The age of the Ethernet switch has little to do with its performance,
unless it has everything to do with its performance.
Mark, you realize that this is what NANOG will make sure is engraved on your
headstone, right?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/Apr/15 08:32, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Mark, you realize that this is what NANOG will make sure is engraved
on your headstone, right?
Only if I expire :-)...
Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
Why do these guys deserve to be
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:23:53 +0200, Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com
said:
So why is IX peering so expensive?
But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
The 40 dix particants should donate 1000 USD once and get a new
layer 2 switch. Why does that not
: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:23:53 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the only
On 19/Apr/15 11:23, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the only service is running an old
On Apr 19, 2015, at 6:09 AM, William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:23:53 +0200, Baldur Norddahl
baldur.nordd...@gmail.com said:
So why is IX peering so expensive?
But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
The 40 dix particants should
, 2015 4:23:53 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the only service is running
One more interesting thing.
If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact bandwidth, per
megabit. If you buy IX peering port, you are paying for port. This means
Tranist ports are overloaded or close to it, while IX ports usually
always have some extra free capacity.
In practice, this
: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
For sure, that's the main reason of peering, not a cost saving ;)
On 04/15/15 23:12, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Please keep in mind that some companies peer despite it offers no
savings for them and at the end of the day it might be even more
expensive. They do it because of performance and
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Max Tulyev max...@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
On 16/Apr/15 17:10, Edward Dore wrote:
I don't have any quantifiable data on what has happened to IP transit
costs over the same period, but for a point comparison I'd say that
off the top of my head you can get a 1G CDR on a 10G port from a
tier-1 provider in London for approximately the
Hammett na...@ics-il.net
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:51:09 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
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
Peering and peering on an exchange are two different things. Peering at an
exchange has several benefits other than the simple cost of transit. If you
are in a large data center which charges fees for cross connects a single cross
connect to an exchange can save you money.
Peering can also
On 17/Apr/15 15:05, Max Tulyev wrote:
One more interesting thing.
If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact bandwidth, per
megabit. If you buy IX peering port, you are paying for port. This means
Tranist ports are overloaded or close to it, while IX ports usually
always have
On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so much
in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am certain
that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a regional
tier-2 instead, I'd be lowering my total
On 15/Apr/15 22:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
* Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am
certain that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a
regional
On 15/Apr/15 22:12, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
Please keep in mind that some companies peer despite it offers no
savings for them and at the end of the day it might be even more
expensive. They do it because of performance and reliability reasons.
And also to reduce AS hops. If you and
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00:53 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
* Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed
On 16 Apr 2015, at 08:00, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
* Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am
certain that if I were
On 16/Apr/15 09:00, Tore Anderson wrote:
You appear to be assuming that an IP transit port is more expensive
then an IXP port with the same speed. That doesn't seem to always be
the case anymore, at least not in all parts of the world, and I expect
this trend to continue - transit prices
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
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
://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
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
-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
- 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
On 4/15/15 07:28, 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
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
including Hurricane Electric and Cogent.
Netnod
On 2015-04-15 19:50, Max Tulyev wrote:
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
: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 3:07:52 PM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many
-utilization
interconnect ports are typical for them.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
(Reply to thread, not necessarily myself
* Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
49 matches
Mail list logo
