Question about peering

Thu May 10 14:39:58 UTC 2012

At the previous regional ISP i worked for we peered with google, facebook,
yahoo, pandora and several other content providers at Any2 exchange
(coresite).  We capitalized on that link since a tremendous amount of our
traffic was destined for those networks.

The cost to join that exchange was relatively cheap compared to what we
were paying for transit.  You may want to look for a similar exchange at
your pop.

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Justin Wilson <lists at mtin.net> wrote:

>        We are cross-connected with several ISPs at a couple of data
> centers.
> Very helpful in one situation as several of us share a soft-switch.
>
>        Justin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Szarka <szlists at szarka.org>
> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:50 PM
> To: <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Question about peering
>
> >On 4/6/2012 3:11 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> >> I am curious to know how small ISPs plan peering with other interested
> >> parties. E.g if ISP A is connected to ISP C via big backbone ISP B, and
> >>say
> >> A and C both have open peering policy and assuming the exist in same
> >> exchange or nearby. Now at this point is there is any "minimum
> >>bandwidth"
> >> considerations? Say if A and C have 1Gbps + of flowing traffic - very
> >> likely peering would be good idea to save transit costs to B. But if A
> >>and
> >> C have very low levels - does it still makes sense? Does peering costs
> >> anything if ISPs are in same exchange? Does at low traffic level it
> >>makes
> >> more sense to keep on reaching other ISPs via big transit provider?
> >
> >One thing to consider is that peering can benefit both networks not just
> >because of bandwidth savings, but because (given sufficient clue) they
> >can deliver better performance and reliability to their mutual customers.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

-- 
-Matt Chung