> NYIIX 1/4 rack + 100M switch connection - <$1K/mth
> fiber cx for Gig-E to high-bandwidth peers: $0/mth
> small GSR12000 - $20K from the local bankruptcy trustee
> OC192 from Manhattan to Vienna, VA: $10K/mth
> SIX is also quite inexpensive.
> I've been told Equinix can be talked down from ~$3K
> > NYIIX 1/4 rack + 100M switch connection - <$1K/mth
> > fiber cx for Gig-E to high-bandwidth peers: $0/mth
> > small GSR12000 - $20K from the local bankruptcy trustee
> > OC192 from Manhattan to Vienna, VA: $10K/mth
> > SIX is also quite inexpensive.
> > I've been told Equinix can be talked do
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:11:15PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> > Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> > just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> > $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for t
> Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the router,
> plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthly costs for y
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>
> >Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> >Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
> >party X feels that party Y is gaini
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
[snip]
> The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping
> on and off magnified by multihoming punching holes in large aggregates.
>
> Small announcement show more churn because they are more granular.
> They expa
That makes sense ... many full routing tables is fare worse than
many partial routing tables. If my last resort was buying from a
Tier 1 after peering out most of my traffic I would prefer "paid
peering" or "partial transit". ... and one can always not listen to
routes that have multiple non optim
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
>
> Flat designs tend to ring like a bell when instability is introduced.
> I think we held the world record for flapping at NAP.NET in 95-96.
> That was a flat design executed during a time when the Cisco architecture
> and softwar
Preaching to the ministers here:
I would like to see more data. I don't think a network with large
aggregates (some who can not peer with tier 1s due to current
policies) has much impact on the global routing structure.
The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping
on and off
Stephen,
>> I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering
>> with the downstreams will improve user quality of service by
>> both reducing latency and taking unnecessary points of failure
>> out of the network.
Is it really common sense? If so, is the common sense correct?
In f
10 matches
Mail list logo
