Re: Leaving public peering?

From: Jack Bates (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 02 2009 - 17:26:22 EST

  • Next message: Shon Elliott: "RE: Leaving public peering?"

    Leo Bicknell wrote:
    > rate, and that helps offset some of the costs. I've oversimplified, and
    > it's a very complex problem for most providers; however I know many are
    > looking at the fees for peering ports go from being in the noise to a
    > huge part of their cost structure and that doesn't work.

    Let's also not forget those who aren't sitting right next to the
    exchange. I'd love to have better peering, private and public, but
    there's the additional 300 miles of long haul to consider as well.

    Then there's the consideration of redundancy. Do I want redundant feeds
    to the exchange or do I want to consider my local transits to be the
    redundancy. Will I be purchasing transit via the exchange link to
    perform redundant functions for my local transits?

    It's always a difficult financial decision, and I've been battling it
    for years. I want the option for more direct connectivity and more
    peering options, but there's additional costs which are hard to justify
    to the bean counters.

    Jack (still no dual stacked IPv6 transit due to same issues as above)

  • Next message: Shon Elliott: "RE: Leaving public peering?"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD