Hi NANOG We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network? I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better. Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Hi Reza, I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is by no means a definitive list though: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2&pli=1# Cheers, James.
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. Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote: the
whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Hi Reza,
I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is by no means a definitive list though:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2&pli=1#
Cheers, James.
There is only a xconnect expense if the peering happens at a third party datacenter. If it is a first party datacenter any xconnect fees can be considered part of the peering price. There is also the case where one party leases or builds a fiber to the other party. The xconnect always goes to the DC owner but there is usually a choice of companies that can lease fiber. The transit provider might own the fiber and provide the fiber lease and transit charge as one combined offer. We buy transit from the incumbent teleco. There is no xconnect because we are in the building already with our gpon equipment and all cost is regulated by the government. The regulator put the price of xconnect at $0 because frankly xconnect is a made up cost. Regards Baldur
Hi Reza - When researching the costs of peering you should perhaps categorize into the most popular forms of peering. Public (many-to-many) peering solutions vs. private (one-to-one) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are of course many opinions on the merits of public peering vs. private peering, economically, technically, and strategically, but the unit cost per bit varies in both cases based on how much traffic is exchanged. The unit cost is the cost of peering divided by the amount of traffic peered, giving us a measure in $/Mbps. Network operators often compare this against the unit cost of transit, and make their decisions based primarily on cost. Generally I have seen content and cloud companies care more about the end-user experience and less about the cost of delivering the bits. To them peering directly provides better connectivity, so even if it costs more that Internet Transit it is often strategic to do so to improve the end-user experience. We now have data to back this improved end-user experience. Remote Peering ---------------------- And then consider that one can remove the capital costs and reduce the opex for public and private peering through a technique called remote peering (aka ‘tethering’) into the well populated IXPs. Here we can remove the cost of the routers (amortized to thousands per month typically), opex for powered colocation (maybe thousands per month) and deployment costs. The transport cost remains. One write up I did in The Internet Peering Playbook showed that remote peering into an IXP can be had for about the cost of the transport alone. I also collected the religious arguments from the field highlighting the arguments for and against remote peering. This can be found in the book as well as in this blog: http://drpeering.net/AskDrPeering/blog/articles/Ask_DrPeering/Entries/2012/9... <http://drpeering.net/AskDrPeering/blog/articles/Ask_DrPeering/Entries/2012/9/18_The_Great_Remote_Peering_Debate.html> I hope this helps - Bill
On Dec 22, 2015, at 11:11 AM, 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.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:33 AM, James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com> wrote:
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand
On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote: the
whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Hi Reza,
I have a list of example items that need to be costed in below, it is by no means a definitive list though:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2bPZDt75hAwcR4iKMqaNSGIeM-nJSWLZ6SLTTnuXNs/edit?pref=2&pli=1#
Cheers, James.
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.
Thanks James, I totally missed that section. Sorry about that. I think the picture is becoming more clear in my head now. Let me first make sure my terminology is right. - With respect to peering, there are "transit" in which you pay the other AS in 95-5 fashion or whatever, and "settlement-free" in which two ASes agree not to charge each other for traffic exchange. In the latter, the exchanged traffic is limited to the customer cone of the two ASes. - Peering can happen either "publicly" though an IXP or "privately" through directly linking the ports of two routers and exchanging BGP traffic. Now, if I understood correctly, the difference between the cost of public and private peering is that in public, one AS pays to be connected to the IXP fabric, perhaps to the IXP provider and the colo provider. I'm assuming IXP and colo provider are not always the same organization as it is the case in SIX (Seattle IXP) and colo providers in Westin Building including Equinix, ZAYO, etc. So the AS is being charged for becoming an IXP member, and also to be allowed to take a line from its rack to the IXP's "meet me room". Additionally if one decides to buy transit over the IXP it has to pay the transit providers. In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free. All the costs of HW, SW, personnel, administration, and perhaps transmission between colos (including remote peering, being waved to another location, tethering) would be the same, right? Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM, James Bensley <jwbensley@gmail.com> 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
On 22 December 2015 at 19:11, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote: 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.
On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is not a simple $/month. But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy). If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own datacenter in the basement of their offices. Regards, Baldur
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation? I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [ https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-110000/] and it made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice. Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is not a simple $/month.
But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).
If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own datacenter in the basement of their offices.
Regards,
Baldur
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation?
Sure. But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
On 24 December 2015 at 03:04, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation?
Sure. But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
Also remember that 300 miles of fiber is going to go through a dozen of street cabinets to get there. Regards, Baldur
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24 December 2015 at 03:04, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:39:11 -0800, Reza Motamedi said:
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation?
Sure. But there are places in the US where you have to decide whether the cost of lighting 300 miles of fiber to the colo is worth the benefits, when the other option is lighting fiber to a street cabinet across town.
Also remember that 300 miles of fiber is going to go through a dozen of street cabinets to get there.
be sure that you either: a) plan for a second path for when the backhoe arrives b) understand that you may slosh 'lots' of traffic 'elsewhere' when A happens if you don't want to ship/install/etc a device in a cage in 'equinix' but rather use a Xconnect/fiber provider solution you're moving your failure domains around a bit.
Hi, The counter example is the Netnod Stockholm IX that allows you to connect via dark fiber from anywhere within Stockholm. The other large european exchanges also offer multiple connection options. "Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation? " That really depends on your situation and who you are. As a residential ISP our business is not in a DC. If we have any equipment at all there, it would only be a router. But usually we do not want a router there, we just want a connection. So in fact we do not want access to the facility at all. If you are a content provider, you might have servers and what not. Then sure. Or if you are large IP transit provider, you might want to host a router, so you can sell to other customers at the DC (if it is a transit neutral DC). This is why we now see the rise of remote peering. Regards, Baldur On 24 December 2015 at 01:39, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation?
I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [ https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-110000/] and it made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is not a simple $/month.
But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).
If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own datacenter in the basement of their offices.
Regards,
Baldur
Hi Reza, There is some terminology and view point confusion... First of all, it is Network(s) which connect with Other Networks using AS #, not AS's which connect with each other. (In a particular view (Routing) it could be said that AS's connect with each other). Second, A connection (interconnection) is just that...as simple as a piece of cable that is connecting two routers together (routers are next to each other)....In a complex example, the two routers can be in different parts of the world. Today we take Colo Providers for granted, in realty they merely provide " Rent a Data Center" + "Rent other services on demand". Originally these folks used to make their money by renting space, power, cooling etc.. However they have figured out over the years that they can make a lot more money by 'renting' a piece of wire, and lately they trend is to extract as much money they possibly can for renting these wires as they can get.... These are the x-connect charges... Other have pointed out that 'peering' comes in many flavors, and it can be argued that IP Transit (aka internet access) is the top of the paid peering interconnection type. There are a number of 'Eco-systems' in play if you want to look at the whole picture. There are Last Mile network, Middle Mile Networks, Long Haul Networks, Data Center(s), Peering Fabric's etc. Today connectivity decisions are influenced by Location, Cost of getting to that Location, and Cost of having Presence at that location. Which in turning out to be more and more dictated by Long Haul connectivity providers and mostly by the terms and conditions of the Colo Providers. Older Colo's where lots of major carriers are present, tend to be the most arrogant, expensive and challenging companies to do business with, however their competitors who tend to be far more reasonable and cooperative to work with, are lacking in their list of 'Networks' that one can connect with...thus forcing difficult decisions. Another interesting thing to note is that Different Markets have Different Colo Folks holding the 'premier' position, and they pretty much all act that way in those markets, the same operator in other markets where they don't have a lead position are much more reasonable to work with, (and there are always some exceptions). So from a network (ISP) operator's perspective the following appears to be options listed in graduating manner. 1) Buy IP Transit from who every is available (Typically a very limited choice if any, and pretty much no negotiating leverage) 2) Buy Middle Mile transport to nearest Data Center in Town. (Better options than 1, unless the D.C. is a major one, otherwise still limited options) 3) Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center...(Better options then 2, costs get to be interesting). 4) Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center and establish a POP at the DC 5) Buy Long Haul to nearest Major Data Center and establish a POP at that DC and extend your connections to other DC for connectivity (because who you want to connect to is not present in the other Data Center). 6) Buy Multiple Long Haul to different Major Data Center and establish POP and connectivity etc etc etc. So after painting this picture... What costs do you want to analyze ? Not everyone is building networks in the same manner.. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:39:11 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs
Aren't availability, guaranteed service and remote hands an incentive to do peering inside a third party colocation?
I see very large numbers for xconnects for instance in Equnix [ https://blog.equinix.com/2013/08/equinix-cross-connects-hit-110000/] and it made me believe buying xconnect is still a normal practice.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
On 23 December 2015 at 20:05, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
In Private peering however the AS pays the colo provider for the xconnect per ASes that it wants to peer with. The cost of transit would be additional if the peering is in fact a transit and not settlement free.
You are still assuming there is a colo. But perhaps the most common case is a multihomed company buying transit from two independent service providers. The customer is at his office and the two service providers will have their end somewhere in the city, perhaps even terminating their end of the circuit in a street cabinet. The customer is multihomed and therefore has his own AS. This is a peering situation with three AS numbers that fits your description, it is private peering and there is no xconnect. Instead there is usually a leased line cost, but this cost is often hidden from the customer. Also the ISP might own the line (physical fiber) and the cost is not a simple $/month.
But also two ISPs might peer in this way. Residual internet providers have a ton of points of presences, so why choose a place where there is a xconnect fee? We can peer anywhere in the city, including at a random street cabinet. Often the cost of renting a dark fiber somewhere is lower than a xconnect fee (a sign that datacenter owners are too greedy).
If one party is a content provider I give you that the peering point is usually at a datacenter somewhere. But still, if the content provider is big enough to run their own datacenter, we are back at the leased line case again. Some content providers, even if small, prefer to just run their own datacenter in the basement of their offices.
Regards,
Baldur
On 23 Dec 2015 20:06, "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
All the costs of HW, SW, personnel, administration, and perhaps
transmission between colos (including remote peering, being waved to another location, tethering) would be the same, right? Usually yes but with transit you are paying for global connectivity/reachability, for an extreme comparison, I only need to exchange 50mbps of data with Facebook before they will peering with me (last time I checked), I'm not going to put a 100Mbps link into a port that can do 10G. So a direct transit feed is more commercially viable for me as a consumer than private or public peering unless a particular business demand can cover the cost risk of peering. James.
there is also the increasingly common pattern of "remote peering" where you lease a circuit to an exchange point but do not establish a presence in the facility. this can either be done with the last leg on a dedicated cross-connect (so it looks to the exchange operator just like any other connection except that it is to an intermediary and not to you) or multiplexed on a single connection to the exchange operated by a carrier that specialises in facilitating remote peering. to the extent that this practice dramatically decouples the peering graph from the underlying infrastructure graph it is debatable if this is a wise or efficient strategy. on the other hand it significantly widens the operational scope of bgp configuration knobs. but the point is, you can do peering without a physical presence in a location, and it is a common thing to do. cheers, -w -- William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> | School of Informatics https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ | University of Edinburgh https://hubs.net.uk/ | HUBS AS60241 The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Salam Reza, You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly. The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider. Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to call me at your convenience. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM Subject: interconnection costs
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
Not offlist. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal@snappytelecom.net> wrote:
Salam Reza,
You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to call me at your convenience.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM Subject: interconnection costs
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
Ouch... so much for off list .. :( Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
Salam Reza,
You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to call me at your convenience.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM Subject: interconnection costs
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-) ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list) Ouch... so much for off list .. :( Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
Salam Reza,
You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to call me at your convenience.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM Subject: interconnection costs
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
or More like getting too old to remember completing the edit of mail to: field ! LOL! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:38:21 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-)
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 1:31:11 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
Ouch... so much for off list .. :(
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal@snappytelecom.net> To: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> Cc: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 2:28:13 PM Subject: Re: interconnection costs (off list)
Salam Reza,
You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly.
The way you have posed the question, indicates to me that you are taking a particular view of a 'network', which is not the same view I hold. I am not sure if your view is more prevalent or our view as a service provider.
Regardless I think it would make for an interesting conversation. Feel free to call me at your convenience.
Regards.
Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support@Snappytelecom.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reza Motamedi" <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> To: "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:44:06 AM Subject: interconnection costs
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
If you haven't already, you should read this http://drpeering.net/core/bookOutline.html On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
Hi NANOG
We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the connection options such as public peering on IXP, and private peering through xconnects. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that the smaller AS pays to the larger AS, in the former you pay a monthly fee to establish a link to the switching fabric and then you can connect to as many ASes that are member in the IXP, and in the later you need to pay for as many xconnects that you need to connect to as many ASes that you plan to peer with. Obviously in both cases there is the cost of being in the colocation and renting a rack or whatever. What are the other costs involved? How should the AS reach the colocation center in the first place? I don't think every network can dig a hole an lay cables. Who should they pay to get from one PoP to another? Do ASes have to pay for xconnect to connect their PoP in a data center to the rest of their network?
I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the whole ecosystem a little bit better.
Best Regards Reza Motamedi (R.M) Graduate Research Fellow Oregon Network Research Group Computer and Information Science University of Oregon
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -
participants (12)
-
Baldur Norddahl
-
Bill Norton
-
Christopher Morrow
-
Faisal Imtiaz
-
Gavin Henry
-
James Bensley
-
Joly MacFie
-
Josh Luthman
-
Mike Hammett
-
Reza Motamedi
-
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
-
William Waites