Peering and Network Cost
mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Thu Apr 16 06:15:16 UTC 2015
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 total MRC somewhat, without really
> reducing connectivity quality to my (former) peers.
I wouldn't say exchange point prices are stagnant, per se. They may
remain the same, but what goes up is the port bandwidth. It's not
directly linear, but you get my point.
Again, the burden is on the peering members to extract the most out of
their peering links by having as much peering as possible. Route servers
at the exchange points have played a huge role in facilitating this, but
the final stretch involves getting in touch with a bunch of members to
setup bi-lateral sessions, with no guarantee they will agree, or if they
do, may not peer their entire network, not taking into account whether
they will do this for free or not.
Perhaps the next bunch of exchange point operators will be those who
play a more active role in facilitating peering across all members, so
as to keep traffic on their switch fabric and away from transit
providers. But that is probably a zero-sum game, as their involvement
will just mean more salaries that need to get paid, leading to an
increase in membership fees.
More information about the NANOG