At the previous regional ISP i worked for we peered with google, facebook, yahoo, pandora and several other content providers at Any2 exchange (coresite). We capitalized on that link since a tremendous amount of our traffic was destined for those networks. The cost to join that exchange was relatively cheap compared to what we were paying for transit. You may want to look for a similar exchange at your pop. On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Justin Wilson <lists@mtin.net> wrote:
We are cross-connected with several ISPs at a couple of data centers. Very helpful in one situation as several of us share a soft-switch.
Justin
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Szarka <szlists@szarka.org> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 4:50 PM To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Question about peering
On 4/6/2012 3:11 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
I am curious to know how small ISPs plan peering with other interested parties. E.g if ISP A is connected to ISP C via big backbone ISP B, and say A and C both have open peering policy and assuming the exist in same exchange or nearby. Now at this point is there is any "minimum bandwidth" considerations? Say if A and C have 1Gbps + of flowing traffic - very likely peering would be good idea to save transit costs to B. But if A and C have very low levels - does it still makes sense? Does peering costs anything if ISPs are in same exchange? Does at low traffic level it makes more sense to keep on reaching other ISPs via big transit provider?
One thing to consider is that peering can benefit both networks not just because of bandwidth savings, but because (given sufficient clue) they can deliver better performance and reliability to their mutual customers.
-- -Matt Chung