On 5/23/15 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Dave Taht"
>
>> Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
>> moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
>>
>> and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Dave Taht"
> Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
> moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
>
> and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
> world where skype/voip/etc transited the local tow
On Thursday, May 21, 2015, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
> > moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
> >
> > and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
> >
On 21/May/15 18:59, Dave Taht wrote:
> Two things I am curious about are 1) What is the measured benefit of
> moving a netflix server into your local ISP network
>
> and 2) does anyone measure "cross town latency". If we lived in a
> world where skype/voip/etc transited the local town only,
> wh
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Hi Roderick,
>
> transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
> economy on small channels. If you don't live in
> Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
> IX. That's the magic.
>
> In larg
On 21 May 2015 at 13:40, Rafael Possamai wrote:
> James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
> with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
> revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
> you are willing to p
providers but we're
keeping our port for the connectivity improvement.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: May 21, 2015 8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
As a small ISP, I'll
org
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2015 7:40:23 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the win
James, curious to know... what size ISPs are they? In the last few years
with the larger ones it has always been about lowering cost and increasing
revenue, which throws the original idea of peering out the window (unless
you are willing to pay).
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:52 AM, James Bensley wro
On 17 April 2015 at 16:53, Justin Wilson - MTIN wrote:
> Peering and peering on an exchange are two different things. Peering at an
> exchange has several benefits other than the simple cost of transit. If you
> are in a large data center which charges fees for cross connects a single
> cross
On 21/Apr/15 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote:
> That's generally good idea, but average TCP session speed depends not
> only your side of connection, but another side as well.
It was always best effort :-).
Mark.
That's generally good idea, but average TCP session speed depends not
only your side of connection, but another side as well.
On 18.04.15 07:58, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 17/Apr/15 15:05, Max Tulyev wrote:
>> One more interesting thing.
>>
>> If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exac
On 21/Apr/15 11:58, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Choose another IX to peer. Or even make your own ;)
>
> Kiev have 3 major IXes, and price is about $100 for 10GE port.
Switch port costs will be governed by how the exchange point is run.
Low or no running costs will, theoretically, yield cheaper ports.
Choose another IX to peer. Or even make your own ;)
Kiev have 3 major IXes, and price is about $100 for 10GE port.
On 19.04.15 12:23, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> So why is IX peering so expensive?
>
> Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
> connected. Each network pays
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20/Apr/15 08:32, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> Mark, you realize that this is what NANOG will make sure is engraved
on your headstone, right?
Only if I expire :-)...
Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVNJ6JAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GvuwP/1RNI9
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> The age of the Ethernet switch has little to do with its performance,
> unless it has everything to do with its performance.
Mark, you realize that this is what NANOG will make sure is engraved on your
headstone, right?
> On Apr 19, 2015, at 6:09 AM, William Waites wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:23:53 +0200, Baldur Norddahl
> said:
>
>> So why is IX peering so expensive?
>
>> But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
>
>> The 40 dix particants should donate 1000 USD once and get a new
>> l
On 19/Apr/15 11:23, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> So why is IX peering so expensive?
>
> Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
> connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
> budget of 24+ USD a year.
>
> But the only service is running an
>
> From: "Baldur Norddahl"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:23:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
>
> So why is IX peering so expensive?
>
> Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
> connecte
t: Sunday, April 19, 2015 4:23:53 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the o
On Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:23:53 +0200, Baldur Norddahl
said:
> So why is IX peering so expensive?
> But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
> The 40 dix particants should donate 1000 USD once and get a new
> layer 2 switch. Why does that not happen?
This is somethi
So why is IX peering so expensive?
Again if I look at my local IX (dix.dk) they have about 40 networks
connected. Each network pays minimum 5800 USD a year. That gives them a
budget of 24+ USD a year.
But the only service is running an old layer 2 switch.
Why do these guys deserve to be paid
On 17/Apr/15 15:05, Max Tulyev wrote:
> One more interesting thing.
>
> If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact bandwidth, per
> megabit. If you buy IX peering port, you are paying for port. This means
> Tranist ports are overloaded or close to it, while IX ports usually
> always ha
Peering and peering on an exchange are two different things. Peering at an
exchange has several benefits other than the simple cost of transit. If you
are in a large data center which charges fees for cross connects a single cross
connect to an exchange can save you money.
Peering can also be
One more interesting thing.
If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact bandwidth, per
megabit. If you buy IX peering port, you are paying for port. This means
Tranist ports are overloaded or close to it, while IX ports usually
always have some extra free capacity.
In practice, this mea
"Mike Hammett"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 6:51:09 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Transit should cost more than peering and should never cost little more than
the cost of a cross connect or a switch, given the load of additional
responsibilities. I
mmett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Max Tulyev"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 5:33:04 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
If you have so much difference in price of IX connectivity (in general,
in
On 16/Apr/15 17:10, Edward Dore wrote:
>
> I don't have any quantifiable data on what has happened to IP transit
> costs over the same period, but for a point comparison I'd say that
> off the top of my head you can get a 1G CDR on a 10G port from a
> tier-1 provider in London for approximately t
For sure, that's the main reason of peering, not a cost saving ;)
On 04/15/15 23:12, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> Please keep in mind that some companies peer despite it offers no
> savings for them and at the end of the day it might be even more
> expensive. They do it because of performance and re
"Max Tulyev"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:33:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
>
> Very true. I left it as I did given that I expect a similar profile from
> others in North America... on NANOG.
>
> Basically,
On 16/Apr/15 09:00, Tore Anderson wrote:
> You appear to be assuming that an IP transit port is more expensive
> then an IXP port with the same speed. That doesn't seem to always be
> the case anymore, at least not in all parts of the world, and I expect
> this trend to continue - transit prices
On 16 Apr 2015, at 08:00, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Mark Tinka
>
>> On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>> We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
>>> much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am
>>> certain that if I were to cut all peering
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 2:00:53 AM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
* Mark Tinka
> On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
> > much in recent years (while IX fees are in
* Mark Tinka
> On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so
> > much in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am
> > certain that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a
> > regional tier-2 instead
On 16/Apr/15 07:25, Tore Anderson wrote:
> We're in a similar situation here; transit prices has come down so much
> in recent years (while IX fees are indeed stagnant) that I am certain
> that if I were to cut all peering and buy everything from a regional
> tier-2 instead, I'd be lowering my to
On 15/Apr/15 22:12, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
>
>
> Please keep in mind that some companies peer despite it offers no
> savings for them and at the end of the day it might be even more
> expensive. They do it because of performance and reliability reasons.
And also to reduce AS hops. If you and
On 15/Apr/15 22:07, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
> cost effective for a small ISP.
>
> As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
> exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit provide
* Baldur Norddahl
> Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
> cost effective for a small ISP.
>
> As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
> exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
> including Hurrican
2015 3:07:52 PM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit
On 2015-04-15 19:50, Max Tulyev wrote:
transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
economy on small channels. If you don't live in
Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
IX. That's the magic.
In large scale peering is still efficient. It i
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
including Hurricane Electric and Cogent.
Netnod p
On 4/15/15 07:28, Rod Beck wrote:
Hi,
As you all know, transit costs in the wholesale market today a few
percent of what it did in 2000. I assume that most of that decline is
due to a modified version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics
costs decline 50% every 18 months) and the advent of
t low-utilization
interconnect ports are typical for them.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
(Reply to thread, not necessarily myself.)
ng Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Max Tulyev"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:27:45 PM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC
node ;)
It is varying f
l.com
- Original Message -
From: "Max Tulyev"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 1:27:45 PM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC
node ;)
It is varying from location to location. For example her
-
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Max Tulyev"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:50:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
ions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Max Tulyev"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:50:41 PM
Subject: Re: Peering and Network Cost
Hi Roderick,
transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
economy on small ch
Hi Roderick,
transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
economy on small channels. If you don't live in
Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
IX. That's the magic.
In large scale peering is still efficient. It is efficient on local
traffi
48 matches
Mail list logo
