* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Wed 18 Aug 2004, 18:52 CEST]:
> Or, perhaps the better question is. How can one justify the cost of
> _public_ peering when fiber cross-connects are $200-$300/month each.
Perhaps not at the site previously mentioned.
I believe fiber crossconnects are cheaper
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
> With these US street prices in mind, how can anyone justify paying
> prices of some commercial exchanges (the last offer I got from PAIX Palo
> Alto was USD 5500 per month for a FE port about a year ago, and Equinix
> Ashburn was not much cheaper). Ple
With these US street prices in mind, how can anyone justify paying
prices of some commercial exchanges (the last offer I got from PAIX Palo
Alto was USD 5500 per month for a FE port about a year ago, and Equinix
Ashburn was not much cheaper). Please note: I'm not talking of the
technical advantage
William B. Norton wrote:
> The Cost of Internet Transit in…
> Commit AU SG JP HK USA
> 1 Mbps $720$625$490$185$125
> 10 Mbps $410$350$150$100$80
> 100 Mbps$325$210$110$80 $45
> 1000 Mbps
Deepak Jain wrote:
Have you tried running a single TCP stream over a 10 meg ethernet with
a 5
megabit/s policer on the port? Do that, figure about what happens and
explain to the rest of the class why this single TCP stream cannot use
all
of the 5 megabit/s itself.
That's entirely a different exa
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
> the example we are talking about below, an _approximately_ 5Gb/s stream
> on an _approximately_ full pipe the performance will be significantly
> better than you imply. And I have customers that do it pretty regularly
> (2 ~500Mb/s streams per GE port
I'm implying that a 7600 with non-OSM doesn't have more than a few ms of
buffers making a single highspeed TCP stream go into saw-tooth performance
mode via it's congestion mechanism being triggered by packet loss instead
of via change in RTT.
Yes, the GSR/juniper with often 500+ ms buffers are of
Have you tried running a single TCP stream over a 10 meg ethernet with a 5
megabit/s policer on the port? Do that, figure about what happens and
explain to the rest of the class why this single TCP stream cannot use all
of the 5 megabit/s itself.
That's entirely a different example. If we are talk
> William B. Norton wrote:
> First - As for whether the US Transit
> market is healthy or unhealthy...
Hmm. For this one topic I think I have the best explanation in the world
(tm): it's unhealthy if you bite the dust, it's healthy if one of your
competitors bites the dust :-)
> It certainly ap
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Maybe I am wrong here, but what does the router's packet buffers have to
> do with a TCP stream? Buffers would add jitter and latency to the pipe.
Have you tried running a single TCP stream over a 10 meg ethernet with a 5
megabit/s policer on the port?
Are you saying that if something costs more in Singapore or Australia
than the US, then the companies selling that product here in the US for
less must be selling below cost?
Things are not the same everywhere. Politics, infrastructure, labor,
taxes, and a myriad of other factors make it not
I've had this discussion a few times with people working at cisco. The
answers I usually get has to do with how well it handles overload, ie what
happens when ports go full.
If you want to be able to do single TCP streams at 5 gigabit/s over your
long-haul 10gig network that is already carrying
> I suppose a more direct analogy to the Big Mac Index would be to take
> some usefully-accurate measure of transit costs in each country
*real* transit costs are not discussed on nanog or other public
fora. compendia of such data are worth the cost of every pixel
on which they're printed.
On 17 Aug 2004, at 14:20, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Things are not the same everywhere. Politics, infrastructure, labor,
taxes, and a myriad of other factors make it not very useful to say
"US is $30, AU is $300" and expect to draw any meaningful conclusion
by the comparison - except, of course
On Aug 17, 2004, at 1:55 PM, William B. Norton wrote:
> The Cost of Internet Transit in..
> Commit AU SG JP HK USA
> 1 Mbps $720$625$490$185$125
> 10 Mbps $410$350$150$100$80
> 100 Mbps$325$210$110$80 $45
> 1000 M
First - As for whether the US Transit market is healthy or unhealthy... I
am not privy to the ISP calculations that demonstrate financial viability
at these prices, so I can only go on the sentiments expressed by folks that
have done the analysis for their companies and have shared their views w
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
of course, if you wait for someone to go bankrupt then buy them you can buy the
entire company and network for about that price :)
I did hear about an isp called optigate.net (coarsegold, CA) that went
bankrupt quite recently ... [at least, an ex optigate customer emailin
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, I doubt any transit provider offering these prices will
> > tell us if they are below cost. (Someone care to prove me wrong? :-)
>
> Cisco 12400 OC192 cards are $225k listp
> Well, with the GSR (and alike) you're paying for high MTBF, large
buffers
> and quick re-routing when something happens, so yes, this is a quality
> issue and that's why you should care and make an informed decision.
There's more than one way to do things.
Some people manage MTBF by having mo
> Those are apples & oranges. You cannot compare bandwidth in countries
> without the same fiber infrastructure as the US ( and with government
> owned PTTs controlling almost all access to the US market.
Bang on!
U.S. prices reflect a mostly complete disintermediation of the telecom
industry
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Other than packet buffer depths and some theoretical ACL limits, is
> there any reason why a 7600 network would be worse than a 12000 built
> one? MTBF, reconvergence and other issues should all be pretty nice and
> like others have mentioned packet bu
> William B. Norton wrote:
> Three said that these transit prices were TOO LOW, in
> one case they paid about double these numbers. It was
> interesting that these three were a content company,
The really interesting question IMHO is this: does said content company
also peers, or just buys transi
rabbit. ;-) Now excuse me while I soak my hands in bleach for having typed
I'd hate to hear what you have to do if you read that out loud. :)
Just to be on-topic:
I think the question of what equipment the network is running for the
purposes of a customer savvy enough to know the difference bet
> I just want my bits to flow quickly and reliably. I don't really care
> if you do it on Juniper, Force10, cisco, or tin-cans-and-string.
>
> Why do you care?
Because of the value proposition inherent in certain manufacturers' products
whether they work properly or not. After all, the Street w
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 04:56:46PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
[snip]
> Do you take on customers at rock-bottom prices which barely cover
> your out-of-pocket expenses, your payroll, and interest payments,
> or do you let them go to your competition because no revenue is
> better than revenue whi
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 01:27:22PM -0700, William B. Norton wrote:
> From my conversations with folks in the Peering Coordinator Community,
> round numbers here, one can pick up a used 7500 series router equipment
> now for about $9K ! The configuration was with an OC-3, and FastE for
> peering,
At 3:05 PM -0400 8/16/04, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
>Perhaps some of your assumptions are wrong. Perhaps people are making due with
>OC48s. Perhaps there is less redundancy or more loading. Perhaps your discount
>level is too low.
>
>Who knows? Did you build an OC192 network with 6 routers
On Aug 16, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Burton, Chris wrote:
Those problems you describe may be the providers initially and
on a on going basis, but they can very quickly become your problem.
The
SLA you have with your provider may allow for a recoup of some money
lost in the form or credits or contract te
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, William B. Norton wrote:
> So, used equipment is one way that some are deploying low cost networks,
> and yes, the packets get there. If their negotiating is as strong as their
> scrounging, they may be able to compete in today's market.
Used engine 2 OC48 cards for the Ci
Patrick -
The other thing that I found interesting when factoring in the equipment
costs into the cost of Peering, was that the used equipment market remains
vibrant.
From my conversations with folks in the Peering Coordinator Community,
round numbers here, one can pick up a used 7500 series ro
riginal Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Patrick W Gilmore
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 12:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patrick W Gilmore
Subject: Re: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:15 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
&
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Well, with the GSR (and alike) you're paying for high MTBF, large buffers
and quick re-routing when something happens, so yes, this is a quality
issue and that's why you should care and make an informed decision.
Do you have data to back up the above claims?
Pete
On Aug 16, 2004, at 3:15 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
What do you care which routers they use? I've seen networks buy the
most expensive routers and run a crappy network, and I've seen people
run stable networks on the cheap.
I just want my bits to fl
Mikael Abrahamsson:
> Well, with the GSR (and alike) you're paying for high MTBF,
> large buffers and quick re-routing when something happens, so
> yes, this is a quality issue and that's why you should care
> and make an informed decision.
For some of us "large buffers" is exactly what we don
Mikael Abrahamsson:
> Well, with the GSR (and alike) you're paying for high MTBF,
> large buffers and quick re-routing when something happens, so
> yes, this is a quality issue and that's why you should care
> and make an informed decision.
For some of us "large buffers" is exactly what we don
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Would you pay $10 more per megabit to buy this capacity from someone using
12000 than from someone using let's say 7600 routers? That's something
people will have to start to figure out the way we're headed here.
You should take more care on picking your examples...
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> What do you care which routers they use? I've seen networks buy the
> most expensive routers and run a crappy network, and I've seen people
> run stable networks on the cheap.
> I just want my bits to flow quickly and reliably. I don't really ca
On Aug 16, 2004, at 2:48 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
Unfortunately, I doubt any transit provider offering these prices will
tell us if they are below cost. (Someone care to prove me wrong? :-)
Cisco 12400 OC192 cards are $225k listprice.
You want to
> I have a hard time to see the business case in this at current prices.
>
> Time to go back to the drawing board and find another way of doing this?
Yes, stop paying retail.
--
Alex Pilosov| DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
President | [EMAIL PROTECTED](800) 710-7031
Pilosoft, I
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> Unfortunately, I doubt any transit provider offering these prices will
> tell us if they are below cost. (Someone care to prove me wrong? :-)
Cisco 12400 OC192 cards are $225k listprice.
You want to build a triangle with redundancy, ie 6 12400,
On Aug 16, 2004, at 1:16 PM, William B. Norton wrote:
Thanks to all who replied with data, and yes, the pricing was all 95th
percentile.
Wow - the U.S. has an amazingly unhealthy and cut throat transit
market in 2004.
Mind if I ask why you think it is "unhealthy"?
I suppose an argument could be
net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Message d'origine -
De : "William B. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "William B. Norton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Envoyé : lundi 16 août 2004 19:16
Objet : R
Thanks to all who replied with data, and yes, the pricing was all 95th
percentile.
Wow - the U.S. has an amazingly unhealthy and cut throat transit market in
2004.
About 20 folks responded, most saying the Peering Coordinator quotes
(below) sounded about right.
> ISP Transit Commits and Price
Bill,
In order to compare apples to apples, clarifying the measuring unit of
the commit would be nice, IMHO:
> William B. Norton wrote:
> if you commit to 1M per month
1M per month of what exactly? Is this average for the month or subject
to 95th percent tile?
Michel.
44 matches
Mail list logo
