If direct connecting != peering then definitely.
Maybe we need to say differentiate between:
- Connected transit
- Remote transit
- Connected peering
- Remote peering
And agree that, by default,
transit ~= remote transit
peering ~= direct peering
Without getting too complicated.
transit is
Deepak Jain wrote:
If direct connecting != peering then definitely.
Maybe we need to say differentiate between:
- Connected transit
- Remote transit
- Connected peering
- Remote peering
And agree that, by default,
transit ~= remote transit
peering ~= direct peering
Without getting too
Hmm. Interesting.
I am (here is SFO area) DSL customer and DialUp customer. But I never
received a notification from my provider(s), possible with free CD,
explaining me (if I am a homewife, not an engineer, of course) what to do
and how to prevent a problems. We have a lot of room for
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I assume Vijay meant the cost of a port for private peering, in which case
if you private with all your peers and you have a lot of small peers thats
going to be a lot of cost for a few kbps of traffic
I'm having trouble
where's the lot of cost?
Stephen J. Wilcox
This is private vs public..
Even if it's private, and assuming that you're clever enough not to peer
for a modem's worth of traffic, the cost is a no-brainer, IMHO.
Someone checks my math please:
At $20 per megabit for transit (which I find very
where's the lot of cost?
Stephen J. Wilcox
This is private vs public..
Even if it's private, and assuming that you're clever enough not to peer
for a modem's worth of traffic, the cost is a no-brainer, IMHO.
Someone checks my math please:
At $20 per megabit for transit (which I find
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
where's the lot of cost?
Stephen J. Wilcox
This is private vs public..
Even if it's private, and assuming that you're clever enough not to peer
for a modem's worth of traffic, the cost is a no-brainer, IMHO.
Someone checks my math please:
At $20 per megabit for transit
Deepak Jain wrote:
But that structure doesn't vary vastly if you'd traffic out
that gig via transit vs direct connect. It does vary (and
add lots of infrastructure) if you don't aggregate your
traffic at IXes and instead use loops to bring transit to
you instead of going to it. (say a few
On Apr 22, 2004, at 9:29 PM, Michel Py wrote:
Deepak Jain wrote:
But that structure doesn't vary vastly if you'd traffic out
that gig via transit vs direct connect. It does vary (and
add lots of infrastructure) if you don't aggregate your
traffic at IXes and instead use loops to bring transit to
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM
To: Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy
On 4/20/04 1:34 AM, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Unless they have cheap access to a free NAP (TorIX, SIX, etc.),
transit, even at higher prices, is probably be the best /
cheapest way to reach the Internet.
This is true, but there are plenty of other
or pushers of data)?
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM
To: Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20
On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 05:15:48AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
anyone whose applications are too important to risk dependency on OPNs
(other people's networks).
OPNs also carry some of the consumers of
On Apr 20, 2004, at 10:32 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
On 4/20/04 1:34 AM, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Unless they have cheap access to a free NAP (TorIX, SIX, etc.),
transit, even at higher prices, is probably be the best /
cheapest way to reach the Internet.
This
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
In many, many cases, especially for smaller providers, this is a spare FE on a
switch which already exists.
I assume Vijay meant the cost of a port for private peering, in which case if
you private with all your peers and you have a lot of small
)
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:36 AM
To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On Apr 20, 2004, at 2:15 PM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
In many, many cases, especially for smaller providers, this is a
spare FE on a
switch which already exists.
I assume Vijay meant the cost of a port for private peering, in which
case if
you
Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of
small
vs. big or being on your own network from source
To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of
small
vs. big or being on your own network from
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I assume Vijay meant the cost of a port for private
peering, in which case if you private with all your
peers and you have a lot of small peers thats going
to be a lot of cost for a few kbps of traffic
I'm having trouble parsing this. You connect your FE or GE port
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had
for $20 per megabit per second?
I last had a detailed look at peering and transit
economics in the summer of 2002. It is pretty
amazing to see what has happened to prices since
then. I have a private mail list underway on
this subject and
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit.
Michel.
On Apr 19, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Michel Py wrote:
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit.
Then their traffic will not justify 1000s of $$ per month for lines,
racks, and NAP connection.
Unless they
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
had for $20 per megabit per second?
anyone whose applications are too important to risk dependency on OPNs
(other people's networks).
--
Paul Vixie
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Gordon Cook wrote:
Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had
for $20 per megabit per second?
Isnt the companies still doped from the bubble in 2000-2001? Price
example:
You have three cities. Two 12400 GSRs per city, and OC192 to connect them,
that's a total of
Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
Unless they have cheap access to a free NAP (TorIX, SIX, etc.),
transit, even at higher prices, is probably be the best /
cheapest way to reach the Internet.
This is true, but there are plenty of other opportunities for peering,
such as: both parties buy DS-3 class
26 matches
Mail list logo
