Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: IX in France
From: virendra rode <virendra.rode () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:28:43 -0800

Hash: SHA256

On 02/23/2012 10:00 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:

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 forwarding.

- ---------------------------
Correct, I meant to say private peering as opposed to settlement-free.

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
- ----------------------
I understand, I'm trying to factor in cost of peering (transport,
equipment, cross-connect, colocation, equipment cost) of buying transit
vs private peering.


Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


  By Date           By Thread  

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