Re: interconnection costs

[James Bensley]

On 23 Dec 2015 20:06, "Reza Motamedi"  wrote:
>
> All the costs of HW, SW, personnel, administration, and perhaps
transmission between colos (including remote peering, being waved to
another location, tethering) would be the same, right?

Usually yes but with transit you are paying for global
connectivity/reachability, for an extreme comparison, I only need to
exchange 50mbps of data with Facebook before they will peering with me
(last time I checked), I'm not going to put a 100Mbps link into a port that
can do 10G. So a direct transit feed is more commercially viable for me as
a consumer than private or public peering unless a particular business
demand can cover the cost risk of peering.

James.

Re: interconnection costs

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl
 wrote:
> On 24 December 2015 at 03:04,  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
>> > Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to
>> do
>> > peering inside a third party colocation?
>>
>> Sure.  But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the
>> cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when
>> the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
>>
>
> Also remember that 300 miles of fiber is going to go through a dozen of
> street cabinets to get there.

be sure that you either:
  a) plan for a second path for when the backhoe arrives
  b) understand that you may slosh 'lots' of traffic 'elsewhere' when A happens

if you don't want to ship/install/etc a device in a cage in 'equinix'
but rather use a Xconnect/fiber provider solution you're moving your
failure domains around a bit.

Re: interconnection costs

[James Bensley]

On 22 December 2015 at 19:11, Reza Motamedi  wrote:
> Thanks guys for the replies.
>
> I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not
> necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
> connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that
> should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of the
> xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my question
> was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical costs/benefits. I
> have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think its more about
> providing a case "settlement free" peering.

Dude, how are you going to weigh up the costs and benefits of peering
if you don't include the "costs". I refer you back to the same
documented I referred you to yesterday...

> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley  wrote:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#


This time look at section 4 of this huge and hard to navigate
document, "4. Peering Costs":

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit#heading=h.nqqauszv8vj


Loosely extrapolating:

Network transport: You need to be physically connected unless you
blagged space in the same rack and can patch in for free.

Hardware: You need tin to route packets.

Software: You need software to monitor the packet routing.

Colocation: You need space/power/cooler/security in which the tin can operate.

Staffing costs: Someone has to configure that tin.

Admin/engineering overhead: Someone has to manage the peering process

Peering port: You probably have to pay to peer.

Reseller ports: You might need remote connectivity to the LAN and
"network transport" above would refer to a cross connect to the remote
peering provider instead of directly into the IXP LAN.



James.

Re: interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Thanks James,

I totally missed that section. Sorry about that. I think the picture is
becoming more clear in my head now.

Let me first make sure my terminology is right.
- With respect to peering, there are "transit" in which you pay the other
AS in 95-5 fashion or whatever, and "settlement-free" in which two ASes
agree not to charge each other for traffic exchange. In the latter, the
exchanged traffic is limited to the customer cone of the two ASes.
- Peering can happen either "publicly" though an IXP or "privately" through
directly linking the ports of two routers and exchanging BGP traffic.

Now, if I understood correctly, the difference between the cost of public
and private peering is that in public, one AS pays to be connected to the
IXP fabric, perhaps to the IXP provider and the colo provider. I'm assuming
IXP and colo provider are not always the same organization as it is the
case in SIX (Seattle IXP) and colo providers in Westin Building including
Equinix, ZAYO, etc. So the AS is being charged for becoming an IXP member,
and also to be allowed to take a line from its rack to the IXP's "meet me
room". Additionally if one decides to buy transit over the IXP it has to
pay the transit providers.
In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect
per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be
additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.

All the costs of HW, SW, personnel, administration, and perhaps
transmission between colos (including remote peering, being waved to
another location, tethering) would be the same, right?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM, James Bensley  wrote:

> On 22 December 2015 at 19:11, Reza Motamedi 
> wrote:
> > Thanks guys for the replies.
> >
> > I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did
> not
> > necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
> > connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit
> that
> > should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of the
> > xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my
> question
> > was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical costs/benefits.
> I
> > have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think its more about
> > providing a case "settlement free" peering.
>
> Dude, how are you going to weigh up the costs and benefits of peering
> if you don't include the "costs". I refer you back to the same
> documented I referred you to yesterday...
>
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley 
> wrote:
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#
>
>
> This time look at section 4 of this huge and hard to navigate
> document, "4. Peering Costs":
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit#heading=h.nqqauszv8vj
>
>
> Loosely extrapolating:
>
> Network transport: You need to be physically connected unless you
> blagged space in the same rack and can patch in for free.
>
> Hardware: You need tin to route packets.
>
> Software: You need software to monitor the packet routing.
>
> Colocation: You need space/power/cooler/security in which the tin can
> operate.
>
> Staffing costs: Someone has to configure that tin.
>
> Admin/engineering overhead: Someone has to manage the peering process
>
> Peering port: You probably have to pay to peer.
>
> Reseller ports: You might need remote connectivity to the LAN and
> "network transport" above would refer to a cross connect to the remote
> peering provider instead of directly into the IXP LAN.
>
>
>
> James.
>
>

Re: interconnection costs

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
> Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do
> peering inside a third party colocation?

Sure.  But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the
cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when
the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.


pgpXPYOdw286q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do
peering inside a third party colocation?

I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [
https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-11/] and it
made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice.

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi 
> wrote:
>
>> In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect
>> per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be
>> additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
>>
>
> You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case
> is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service
> providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will
> have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of
> the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore
> has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits
> your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead
> there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the
> customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is
> not a simple $/month.
>
> But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have
> a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a
> xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random
> street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower
> than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).
>
> If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is
> usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is
> big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case
> again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own
> datacenter in the basement of their offices.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>

Re: interconnection costs

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 24 December 2015 at 03:04,  wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
> > Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to
> do
> > peering inside a third party colocation?
>
> Sure.  But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the
> cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when
> the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
>

Also remember that 300 miles of fiber is going to go through a dozen of
street cabinets to get there.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: interconnection costs

[Baldur Norddahl]

Hi,

The counter example is the Netnod Stockholm IX that allows you to connect
via dark fiber from anywhere within Stockholm. The other large european
exchanges also offer multiple connection options.

"Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to
do peering inside a third party colocation? "

That really depends on your situation and who you are. As a residential ISP
our business is not in a DC. If we have any equipment at all there, it
would only be a router. But usually we do not want a router there, we just
want a connection. So in fact we do not want access to the facility at all.

If you are a content provider, you might have servers and what not. Then
sure. Or if you are large IP transit provider, you might want to host a
router, so you can sell to other customers at the DC (if it is a transit
neutral DC).

This is why we now see the rise of remote peering.

Regards,

Baldur



On 24 December 2015 at 01:39, Reza Motamedi  wrote:

> Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to
> do peering inside a third party colocation?
>
> I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [
> https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-11/] and
> it made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice.
>
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl <
> baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect
>>> per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be
>>> additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
>>>
>>
>> You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case
>> is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service
>> providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will
>> have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of
>> the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore
>> has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits
>> your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead
>> there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the
>> customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is
>> not a simple $/month.
>>
>> But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers
>> have a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a
>> xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random
>> street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower
>> than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).
>>
>> If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is
>> usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is
>> big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case
>> again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own
>> datacenter in the basement of their offices.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
>>
>>
>

Re: interconnection costs

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Hi Reza,

There is some terminology and view point confusion... 

First of all, it is Network(s) which connect with Other Networks using AS #, 
not AS's which connect with each other. (In a particular view (Routing) it 
could be said that AS's connect with each other).

Second, A connection (interconnection) is just that...as simple as a piece of 
cable that is connecting two routers together (routers are next to each 
other)In a complex example, the two routers can be in different parts of 
the world.

Today we take Colo Providers for granted, in realty they merely provide " Rent 
a Data Center" +  "Rent other services on demand".
Originally these folks used to make their money by renting space, power, 
cooling  etc.. However they have figured out over the years that they can make 
a lot more money by 'renting' a piece of wire, and lately they trend is to 
extract as much money they possibly can for renting these wires as they can 
get These are the x-connect charges... 

Other have pointed out that 'peering' comes in many flavors, and it can be 
argued that IP Transit (aka internet access) is the top of the paid peering 
interconnection type.

There are a number of 'Eco-systems' in play if you want to look at the whole 
picture. There are Last Mile network, Middle Mile Networks, Long Haul Networks, 
Data Center(s), Peering Fabric's etc.

Today connectivity decisions are influenced by Location, Cost of getting to 
that Location, and Cost of having Presence at that location. Which in turning 
out to be more and more dictated by Long Haul connectivity providers and mostly 
by the terms and conditions of the Colo Providers. Older Colo's where lots of 
major carriers are present, tend to be the most arrogant, expensive and 
challenging companies to do business with, however their competitors who tend 
to be far more reasonable and cooperative to work with, are lacking in their 
list of 'Networks' that one can connect with...thus forcing difficult decisions.

Another interesting thing to note is that Different Markets have Different Colo 
Folks holding the 'premier' position, and they pretty much all act that way in 
those markets, the same operator in other markets where they don't have a lead 
position are much more reasonable to work with, (and there are always some 
exceptions).

So from a network (ISP) operator's perspective the following appears to be 
options listed in graduating manner.

1)  Buy IP Transit from who every is available (Typically a very 
limited choice if any, and pretty much no negotiating leverage)
2)  Buy Middle Mile transport to nearest Data Center in Town. (Better 
options than 1, unless the D.C. is a major one, otherwise still limited options)
3)  Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center...(Better options then 
2, costs get to be interesting).
4)  Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center and establish a POP at 
the DC
5)  Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center and establish a POP at 
that DC and extend your connections to other DC for connectivity (because who 
you want to connect to is not present in the other Data Center).
6)  Buy Multiple Long Haul to different Major Data Center and establish 
POP and connectivity etc etc etc.

So after painting this picture... What costs do you want to analyze ? Not 
everyone is building networks in the same manner..

:)




Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom


- Original Message -
> From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
> To: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:39:11 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs

> Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do
> peering inside a third party colocation?
> 
> I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [
> https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-11/] and it
> made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice.
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect
>>> per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be
>>> additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
>>>
>>
>> You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case
>> is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service

Re: interconnection costs

[Bill Norton]

Hi Reza - 

When researching the costs of peering you should perhaps categorize into the 
most popular forms of peering.

Public (many-to-many) peering solutions vs. private (one-to-one)
--
There are of course many opinions on the merits of public peering vs. private 
peering, economically, technically, and strategically, but the unit cost per 
bit varies in both cases based on how much traffic is exchanged. The unit cost 
is the cost of peering divided by the amount of traffic peered, giving us a 
measure in $/Mbps. Network operators often compare this against the unit cost 
of transit, and make their decisions based primarily on cost. Generally I have 
seen content and cloud companies care more about the end-user experience and 
less about the cost of delivering the bits. To them peering directly provides 
better connectivity, so even if it costs more that Internet Transit it is often 
strategic to do so to improve the end-user experience. We now have data to back 
this improved end-user experience.

Remote Peering 
--
And then consider that one can remove the capital costs and reduce the opex for 
public and private peering through a technique called remote peering (aka 
‘tethering’) into the well populated IXPs. 

Here we can remove the cost of the routers (amortized to thousands per month 
typically), opex for powered colocation (maybe thousands per month) and 
deployment costs. The transport cost remains. One write up I did in The 
Internet Peering Playbook showed that remote peering into an IXP can be had for 
about the cost of the transport alone. I also collected the religious arguments 
from the field highlighting the arguments for and against remote peering. This 
can be found in the book as well as in this blog:

http://drpeering.net/AskDrPeering/blog/articles/Ask_DrPeering/Entries/2012/9/18_The_Great_Remote_Peering_Debate.html
 


I hope this helps -

Bill 

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Reza Motamedi  wrote:
> 
> Thanks guys for the replies.
> 
> I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not
> necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
> connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit
> that should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of
> the xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my
> question was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical
> costs/benefits. I have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think
> its more about providing a case "settlement free" peering.
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley  wrote:
> 
>> On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi 
>> wrote:
>>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
>>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
>> the
>>> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Reza,
>> 
>> I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is
>> by no means a definitive list though:
>> 
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> James.
>> 
>> 

Re: interconnection costs

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi  wrote:

> In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect
> per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be
> additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
>

You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case is
a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service providers.
The customer is at his office and the two service providers will have their
end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of the
circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore has
his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits
your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead
there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the
customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is
not a simple $/month.

But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have
a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a
xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random
street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower
than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).

If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is
usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is
big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case
again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own
datacenter in the basement of their offices.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Josh Luthman]

Not offlist.


Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
wrote:

> Salam Reza,
>
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to
> answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective,
> being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not
> sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
>
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
>
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel
> free to call me at your convenience.
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
> > To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
> > Subject: interconnection costs
>
> > Hi NANOG
> >
> > We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> > interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> > costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> > costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> > connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> > through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> > transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay
> a
> > monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> > connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> > need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many
> ASes
> > that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> > being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the
> other
> > costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the
> first
> > place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who
> should
> > they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> > to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
> >
> > I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> > different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
> the
> > whole ecosystem a little bit better.
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> > Graduate Research Fellow
> > Oregon Network Research Group
> > Computer and Information Science
> > University of Oregon
>

Re: interconnection costs

[Baldur Norddahl]

There is only a xconnect expense if the peering happens at a third party
datacenter.

If it is a first party datacenter any xconnect fees can be considered part
of the peering price.

There is also the case where one party leases or builds a fiber to the
other party. The xconnect  always goes to the DC owner but there is usually
a choice of companies that can lease fiber. The transit provider might own
the fiber and provide the fiber lease and transit charge as one combined
offer.

We buy transit from the incumbent teleco. There is no xconnect because we
are in the building already with our gpon equipment and all cost is
regulated by the government. The regulator put the price of xconnect at $0
because frankly xconnect is a made up cost.

Regards

Baldur

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Mike Hammett]

Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-) 




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



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> 
To: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu> 
Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM 
Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list) 

Ouch... so much for off list .. :( 

Faisal Imtiaz 
Snappy Internet & Telecom 
7266 SW 48 Street 
Miami, FL 33155 
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 

- Original Message - 
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net> 
> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu> 
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> 
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM 
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list) 

> Salam Reza, 
> 
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
> the 
> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small 
> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be 
> able to convey to you the information properly. 
> 
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a 
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not 
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider. 
> 
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free 
> to 
> call me at your convenience. 
> 
> Regards. 
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz 
> Snappy Internet & Telecom 
> 7266 SW 48 Street 
> Miami, FL 33155 
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net 
> 
> ----- Original Message - 
>> From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu> 
>> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM 
>> Subject: interconnection costs 
> 
>> Hi NANOG 
>> 
>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of 
>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various 
>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the 
>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the 
>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering 
>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of 
>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a 
>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can 
>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you 
>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes 
>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of 
>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other 
>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first 
>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should 
>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect 
>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network? 
>> 
>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have 
>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the 
>> whole ecosystem a little bit better. 
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards 
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M) 
>> Graduate Research Fellow 
>> Oregon Network Research Group 
>> Computer and Information Science 
> > University of Oregon 

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Salam Reza,

You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small 
ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be 
able to convey to you the information properly.

The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a 
particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not 
sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.

Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to 
call me at your convenience.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
> Subject: interconnection costs

> Hi NANOG
> 
> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
> 
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

or More like getting too old to remember completing the edit of mail to: field !

LOL!


Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:38:21 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)

> Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
> 
> Ouch... so much for off list .. :(
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -----
>> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
>> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
>> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
> 
>> Salam Reza,
>> 
>> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
>> the
>> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small
>> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be
>> able to convey to you the information properly.
>> 
>> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
>> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
>> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
>> 
>> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free 
>> to
>> call me at your convenience.
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>> 7266 SW 48 Street
>> Miami, FL 33155
>> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
>> 
>> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
>> 
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
>>> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
>>> Subject: interconnection costs
>> 
>>> Hi NANOG
>>> 
>>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
>>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
>>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
>>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
>>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
>>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
>>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
>>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
>>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
>>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
>>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
>>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
>>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
>>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
>>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
>>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>>> 
>>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
>>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
>>> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best Regards
>>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>>> Graduate Research Fellow
>>> Oregon Network Research Group
>>> Computer and Information Science
> > > University of Oregon

Re: interconnection costs

[Joly MacFie]

​If you haven't already, you should read this

​http://drpeering.net/core/bookOutline.html


​

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Reza Motamedi 
wrote:

> Hi NANOG
>
> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
>



-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--
-

Re: interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Thanks guys for the replies.

I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not
necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit
that should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of
the xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my
question was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical
costs/benefits. I have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think
its more about providing a case "settlement free" peering.

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley  wrote:

> On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi 
> wrote:
> > I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> > different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
> the
> > whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>
>
> Hi Reza,
>
> I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is
> by no means a definitive list though:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#
>
>
> Cheers,
> James.
>
>

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

Ouch... so much for off list .. :(

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, FL 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232

Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net

- Original Message -
> From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <fai...@snappytelecom.net>
> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM
> Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)

> Salam Reza,
> 
> You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer 
> the
> over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small
> ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be
> able to convey to you the information properly.
> 
> The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a
> particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not
> sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
> 
> Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to
> call me at your convenience.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, FL 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> 
> Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net
> 
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Reza Motamedi" <motam...@cs.uoregon.edu>
>> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM
>> Subject: interconnection costs
> 
>> Hi NANOG
>> 
>> We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
>> interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
>> costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
>> costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
>> connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
>> through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
>> transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
>> monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
>> connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
>> need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
>> that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
>> being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
>> costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
>> place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
>> they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
>> to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
>> 
>> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
>> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
>> whole ecosystem a little bit better.
>> 
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>> Graduate Research Fellow
>> Oregon Network Research Group
>> Computer and Information Science
> > University of Oregon

interconnection costs

[Reza Motamedi]

Hi NANOG

We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of
interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various
costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the
costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the
connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering
through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of
transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a
monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can
connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you
need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes
that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of
being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other
costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first
place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should
they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect
to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?

I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
whole ecosystem a little bit better.


Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

Re: interconnection costs

[James Bensley]

On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi  wrote:
> I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have
> different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the
> whole ecosystem a little bit better.


Hi Reza,

I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is
by no means a definitive list though:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2=1#


Cheers,
James.

Re: interconnection costs

[William Waites]

there is also the increasingly common pattern of "remote peering"
where you lease a circuit to an exchange point but do not establish a
presence in the facility. this can either be done with the last leg on
a dedicated cross-connect (so it looks to the exchange operator just
like any other connection except that it is to an intermediary and not
to you) or multiplexed on a single connection to the exchange operated
by a carrier that specialises in facilitating remote peering.

to the extent that this practice dramatically decouples the peering
graph from the underlying infrastructure graph it is debatable if this
is a wise or efficient strategy. on the other hand it significantly
widens the operational scope of bgp configuration knobs.

but the point is, you can do peering without a physical presence in a
location, and it is a common thing to do.

cheers,
-w

--
William Waites   |  School of Informatics
   https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/  | University of Edinburgh
 https://hubs.net.uk/ |  HUBS AS60241

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

[Gavin Henry]

On list :)