Question on peering strategies

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Mon May 23 12:56:01 UTC 2016


In a message written on Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> interconnects than direct wires.

The problem is peering is not an even distribution by traffic level.

When BigCDNCo connects to BigCableCo, they need 50x100GE.  It's
actually cheaper to run the fiber between them at 10 locations for
5x100GE each than it is to run fiber from both of them to a switch,
and have the switch providing vendor engineer the switch to that
capacity.  (Hint, running to the switch is 2x the fiber, plus 
switch ports.)

On the other end of the spectrum, the guy who has 5Gbps of traffic
can buy a 10GE into the switched exchange, have lots of headroom
and connect to everyone with the same port.

The truth of the matter is there are 40 players in the big pile,
15,000 providers in the small pile, and perhaps only 100 oddballs
between the two.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160523/e003cc4c/attachment.pgp>


More information about the NANOG mailing list