On Mon, 16 May 2016, Reza Motamedi wrote:
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the reply.
Let me clarify another issue first, since I thought the colo's business model is different at least in the US. So if AS-a puts its router in Equinix, it should pay the same amount in the following two scenario (only considering the interconnection cost and not the rent for racks and remote hands and ....)? 1) AS-a only connects to the IX and establishes all inter-AS connections through the IX. 2) AS-a connects to the IX, in addition to privately connecting to bunch of other colo customers (these private connections can be either transit or settlement-free peerings). My understanding was that colos in the US charge per cross connect, so the more you connect privately, the more you pay. This article may be old, but
Ports on the colo's IX, Equinix for example, will likely cost more than just a cross connect. If you have peers with which you exchange enough traffic, it can make sense to remove that traffic from the IX and put it on PNI (cross connect) peering, leaving the IX port(s) for use primarily for peering with lots of "smaller peers" (in the amount of traffic exchanged). Typically, if a peer is big enough to justify PNI, you won't want to fail-over to the IX as a backup, because doing so is likely to congest your or their IX links. Of course, there are exceptions. A PNI peer might not have enough ports to dedicate to PNI peering and might want to spread peering traffic over both PNI and IX evenly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route | therefore you are _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________