For starters I would like to apologize for cc-ing both nanog and my new nn list. (I will add sender filters)
A bit more below. On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 9:32 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >> >> 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. 😊 > > > There is often a chicken/egg scenario here with the economics. As an eyeball > network, your costs to build out and connect to Dallas are greater than your > transit cost, so you do that. Totally fair. > > However think about it from the content side. Say I want to build into to > Houston. I have to put routers in, and a bunch of cache servers, so I have > capital outlay , plus opex for space, power, IX/backhaul/transit costs. > That's not cheap, so there's a lot of calculations that go into it. Is there > enough total eyeball traffic there to make it worth it? Is saving 8-10ms > enough of a performance boost to justify the spend? What are the long term > trends in that market? These answers are of course different for a company > running their own CDN vs the commercial CDNs. > > I don't work for Google and obviously don't speak for them, but I would > suspect that they're happy to eat a 8-10ms performance hit to serve from > Dallas , versus the amount of capital outlay to build out there right now. The three forms of traffic I care most about are voip, gaming, and videoconferencing, which are rewarding to have at lower latencies. When I was a kid, we had switched phone networks, and while the sound quality was poorer than today, the voice latency cross-town was just like "being there". Nowadays we see 500+ms latencies for this kind of traffic. As to how to make calls across town work that well again, cost-wise, I do not know, but the volume of traffic that would be better served by these interconnects quite low, respective to the overall gains in lower latency experiences for them. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:47 PM Tim Burke <t...@mid.net> wrote: >> >> 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.t...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data >> > stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data? >> > >> > https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php >> > >> > 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://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html >> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos -- Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
