Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
To: Tim Burke <tim@mid.net>
Cc: "Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects
	heard this time!" <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	libreqos <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>,
	NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:46 -0500 (CDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1526053658.959.1697377301597.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DE9D14D2-1D72-4F4B-B16D-069D55BEE13F@mid.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3287 bytes --]

Houston is tricky as due to it's geographic scope, it's quite expensive to build an IX that goes into enough facilities to achieve meaningful scale. CDN 1 is in facility A. CDN 2 in facility B. CDN 3 is in facility C. When I last looked, it was about 80 driving miles to have a dark fiber ring that encompassed all of the facilities one would need to be in. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tim Burke" <tim@mid.net> 
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com> 
Cc: "Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time!" <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "libreqos" <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 10:45:47 PM 
Subject: Re: transit and peering costs projections 

I would say that a 1Gbit IP transit in a carrier neutral DC can be had for a good bit less than $900 on the wholesale market. 

Sadly, IXP’s are seemingly turning into a pay to play game, with rates almost costing as much as transit in many cases after you factor in loop costs. 

For example, in the Houston market (one of the largest and fastest growing regions in the US!), we do not have a major IX, so to get up to Dallas it’s several thousand for a 100g wave, plus several thousand for a 100g port on one of those major IXes. Or, a better option, we can get a 100g flat internet transit for just a little bit more. 

Fortunately, for us as an eyeball network, there are a good number of major content networks that are allowing for private peering in markets like Houston for just the cost of a cross connect and a QSFP if you’re in the right DC, with Google and some others being the outliers. 

So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to get to the others (since it’s about as much as transporting IXP from Dallas), and hoping someone at Google finally sees Houston as more than a third rate city hanging off of Dallas. Or… someone finally brings a worthwhile IX to Houston that gets us more than peering to Kansas City. Yeah, I think the former is more likely. 😊 

See y’all in San Diego this week, 
Tim 

On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data 
> stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data? 
> 
> https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php 
> 
> I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at about 
> $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere? 
> 
> ... 
> 
> I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful, 
> states without them suffer, and I also find the concept of doing micro 
> IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achievable with cheap gear. 
> Finer grained cross connects between telco and ISP and IXP would lower 
> latencies across town quite hugely... 
> 
> PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bundling 3 
> BGP AS numbers at a time, as of the end of this year, also. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html 
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3875 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-10-15 13:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-14 23:01 Dave Taht
2023-10-15  0:25 ` [LibreQoS] [NNagain] " Dave Cohen
2023-10-15  3:45 ` [LibreQoS] " Tim Burke
2023-10-15  4:03   ` Ryan Hamel
2023-10-15  4:12     ` Tim Burke
2023-10-15  4:19       ` Dave Taht
2023-10-15  4:26         ` dan
2023-10-15  7:54       ` Bill Woodcock
2023-10-15 13:41   ` Mike Hammett [this message]
2023-10-15 14:19     ` Tim Burke
2023-10-15 16:44       ` dan
2023-10-15 16:32   ` Tom Beecher
2023-10-15 19:19     ` Tim Burke
2023-10-15  7:40 ` Bill Woodcock
2023-10-15 12:40 ` Jim Troutman
2023-10-15 14:12   ` Tim Burke
2023-10-15 13:38 ` Mike Hammett

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/libreqos.lists.bufferbloat.net/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1526053658.959.1697377301597.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2 \
    --to=nanog@ics-il.net \
    --cc=dave.taht@gmail.com \
    --cc=libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=nanog@nanog.org \
    --cc=nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net \
    --cc=tim@mid.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox