On 22 December 2015 at 19:11, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
Thanks guys for the replies.
I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that should be paid to the transit provider, there also exists the cost of the xconnect that is charged by the colocation provider. Secondly, my question was more about the expenses, as opposed to the technical costs/benefits. I have browsed through the "Peering Playbook", but I think its more about providing a case "settlement free" peering.
Dude, how are you going to weigh up the costs and benefits of peering if you don't include the "costs". I refer you back to the same documented I referred you to yesterday...
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com> wrote:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2&pli=1#
This time look at section 4 of this huge and hard to navigate document, "4. Peering Costs": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnu... Loosely extrapolating: Network transport: You need to be physically connected unless you blagged space in the same rack and can patch in for free. Hardware: You need tin to route packets. Software: You need software to monitor the packet routing. Colocation: You need space/power/cooler/security in which the tin can operate. Staffing costs: Someone has to configure that tin. Admin/engineering overhead: Someone has to manage the peering process Peering port: You probably have to pay to peer. Reseller ports: You might need remote connectivity to the LAN and "network transport" above would refer to a cross connect to the remote peering provider instead of directly into the IXP LAN. James.