Coop Peering Fabric??
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Tue Aug 12 03:37:58 UTC 2008
As a big ra-ra guy around peering, I thought this might be
interesting, but I do not think I agree with the numbers.
On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:15 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
> Given Cogent (and others) recent pursuit of sub $4/mb/s transit...
> and the relatively flat cost of a "paid" peering fabric (even at
> 10G) and the O(N) costs for cross-connects, the thought of
> revisiting the old peering coops presented itself again.
The $4/Mbps & under prices is usually reserved for very large CIR or
full pipe. With a full pipe, assuming you are very, very, very good,
you still pay $5 or more. (I'm assuming a max of 8 Gbps on a 10G
pipe, which seems overly optimistic IMHO.) But that's not important
to the discussion.
> Assuming 10G PNI model: Assuming even nominal cross-connect fees of
> $100-$300/month per fiber pair, plus router port costs for each
> private peer (assuming you aren't at >10% utilization on the port)
> at a commercial exchange, you are eating a pretty significant cost
> per megabit you are actually moving. (plug in your numbers here).
> Assumption: Above 1Gb/s utilization, this makes sense or you are
> counting on growth.
Define "significant"?
Taking 1 Gbps (10%), and assuming even 20K per 10G port over 2 years,
adding in $300/month for the x-conn, you are still looking at barely
over $1/Mbps. If you have more than 10% utilization, that number goes
down. Is that significant? Compared to what? Transit?
I would say a 75% price reduction is pretty significant. Plus you
haven't considered CapEx cost for the transit ports.
> Below 10% you would normally go to a paid peering fabric where you
> are paying cross connect + a flat port charge + router port for 1->N
> peers and hoping that enough utilization occurs that you get >10%
> utilization (to recover capex, opex, etc) and then whatever
> additional utilization you need to cover the flat port charge or you
> are counting on growth.
Here we agree. The port fee even on european IXes is measured in
1000s of $$ per month. And don't get me started on US or Japanese
ports....
> A "coop", best-effort switch fabric colo'd at a few sites would
> allow participants to peer off traffic at a price of the order of a
> single cross-connect (~$500/month per 10G port is possible, maybe
> less), private-VLANs all-around, or to only-mutually approved peers
> (e.g. via an automated web interface, prior art) to avoid many of
> the /old/ issues. No requirement for multi-lateral peering. You
> could peer, sell transit, buy transit, multicast, etc.
>
> The way I figure it, it removes approximately an order of magnitude
> from the operational cost of peering with more than a handful of
> your largest single talkers. Especially as 100G LAN Ethernet becomes
> production before 100G WAN connections become commonplace. Economic
> theory (assuming that worked on the Internet) suggests this would
> allow for the increase in number of peers by approximately an order
> of magnitude (maybe more).
Sorry, I can't get there.
First, the "largest single talkers" would not be on a shared fabric,
they'd be on dedicated ports, so this idea doesn't help.
For the medium to small guys, I think it's a great idea. Look at SIX,
TorIX, PaNAP, etc. But shaving an _order of magnitude_ off? No, I
don't see it. CapEx alone is more than 10% of your cost. (Well,
unless you get Japanese IX ports or the most expensive US IX ports.)
Perhaps I'm lost or confused? Can someone help me understand?
--
TTFN,
patrick
More information about the NANOG
mailing list