IX in France

virendra rode virendra.rode at gmail.com
Thu Feb 23 18:28:43 UTC 2012

Hash: SHA256

On 02/23/2012 10:00 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote:
>> I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an
>> interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is
>> nothing new.
> <mini-rant>
- ----------------------
> I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than what I personally interpret it to mean.
> eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can place gear"
> Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly connect to them as needed.
> I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc.  The difference is in the policy.  What you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding.
> </mini-rant>
- ---------------------------
Correct, I meant to say private peering as opposed to settlement-free.

> Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right business decision.  If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might as well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO.  You're unlikely to be using the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to properly reflect your 95% or whatnot.
> - Jared
- ----------------------
I understand, I'm trying to factor in cost of peering (transport,
equipment, cross-connect, colocation, equipment cost) of buying transit
vs private peering.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the NANOG mailing list