On Mon, 16 May 2016, Reza Motamedi wrote:
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the reply.
Let me clarify another issue first, since I thought the colo's business
model is different at least in the US. So if AS-a puts its router in
Equinix, it should pay the same amount in the following two scenario (only
considering the interconnection cost and not the rent for racks and remote
hands and ....)?
1) AS-a only connects to the IX and establishes all inter-AS connections
through the IX.
2) AS-a connects to the IX, in addition to privately connecting to bunch of
other colo customers (these private connections can be either transit or
settlement-free peerings).
My understanding was that colos in the US charge per cross connect, so the
more you connect privately, the more you pay. This article may be old, but
Ports on the colo's IX, Equinix for example, will likely cost more than
just a cross connect. If you have peers with which you exchange enough
traffic, it can make sense to remove that traffic from the IX and put it
on PNI (cross connect) peering, leaving the IX port(s) for use primarily
for peering with lots of "smaller peers" (in the amount of traffic
exchanged).
Typically, if a peer is big enough to justify PNI, you won't want to
fail-over to the IX as a backup, because doing so is likely to congest
your or their IX links. Of course, there are exceptions. A PNI peer
might not have enough ports to dedicate to PNI peering and might want to
spread peering traffic over both PNI and IX evenly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route
| therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________