Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IX in France
From: Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:00:51 -0500

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.


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 


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

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]