jwbensley at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 17:07:51 UTC 2015
On 22 December 2015 at 19:11, Reza Motamedi <motamedi at cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> Thanks guys for the replies.
> I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not
> necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS
> connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that
> should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of the
> xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my question
> was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical costs/benefits. I
> have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think its more about
> providing a case "settlement free" peering.
Dude, how are you going to weigh up the costs and benefits of peering
if you don't include the "costs". I refer you back to the same
documented I referred you to yesterday...
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley <jwbensley at gmail.com> wrote:
This time look at section 4 of this huge and hard to navigate
document, "4. Peering Costs":
Network transport: You need to be physically connected unless you
blagged space in the same rack and can patch in for free.
Hardware: You need tin to route packets.
Software: You need software to monitor the packet routing.
Colocation: You need space/power/cooler/security in which the tin can operate.
Staffing costs: Someone has to configure that tin.
Admin/engineering overhead: Someone has to manage the peering process
Peering port: You probably have to pay to peer.
Reseller ports: You might need remote connectivity to the LAN and
"network transport" above would refer to a cross connect to the remote
peering provider instead of directly into the IXP LAN.
More information about the NANOG