From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net (mta3.ics-il.net [65.182.164.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A424F3CB39; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 09:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2E280108; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id CJQpIfquQ9H5; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 047CC80111; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:47 -0500 (CDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net 047CC80111 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ics-il.net; s=C00B5EF2-1A13-11E6-9265-5A85BB0A090D; t=1697377307; bh=Q0cCQIgA+x9xFEHagSdHXvLZ4AuRZnyQ0VhlAsT1Rco=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=wZWCiSDNz3vIUqI1vFx2iMcIGaTVj0Y+4q+9ACxT0hQwNnA6DsBXi4SDsGJh+wE+3 79fJdxDRi2R8N6KxXyTmdxn7TGtJG5oN/eB8owlC79PCVn8gA4xxkdVR07Tlp/DTd6 X6cNTosd7GKrfunsc2QcreVrF225uxx5pzWVOTKE= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net Received: from zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id qK0gRO5PuvQ8; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:46 -0500 (CDT) Received: from zimbra8-mailstore1.ics-il.net (Zimbra8-MailStore1.ics-il.net [10.1.8.63]) by zimbra8-mta1.ics-il.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0F580108; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:46 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 08:41:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Hammett To: Tim Burke Cc: Network Neutrality is back! =?utf-8?Q?Let=C2=B4s?= make the technical aspects heard this time! , libreqos , NANOG , Dave Taht Message-ID: <1526053658.959.1697377301597.JavaMail.mhammett@Thunderfuck2> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_958_1547698835.1697377301596" X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4508 (Zimbra Desktop/7.3.1_13063_Windows) Thread-Topic: transit and peering costs projections Thread-Index: AQHZ/vLa28a0XIg7502lmYtGcQl+nrBKNkRWgyPCayA= X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 09:49:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2023 13:41:48 -0000 ------=_Part_958_1547698835.1697377301596 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. C= DN 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 e= ncompassed all of the facilities one would need to be in.=20 -----=20 Mike Hammett=20 Intelligent Computing Solutions=20 http://www.ics-il.com=20 Midwest-IX=20 http://www.midwest-ix.com=20 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Burke" =20 To: "Dave Taht" =20 Cc: "Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects hear= d this time!" , "libreqos" , "NANOG" =20 Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 10:45:47 PM=20 Subject: Re: transit and peering costs projections=20 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.=20 Sadly, IXP=E2=80=99s are seemingly turning into a pay to play game, with ra= tes almost costing as much as transit in many cases after you factor in loo= p costs.=20 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= =E2=80=99s several thousand for a 100g wave, plus several thousand for a 10= 0g 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.=20 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 Hou= ston for just the cost of a cross connect and a QSFP if you=E2=80=99re in t= he right DC, with Google and some others being the outliers.=20 So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to get to the others (since it=E2= =80=99s 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 o= f Dallas. Or=E2=80=A6 someone finally brings a worthwhile IX to Houston tha= t gets us more than peering to Kansas City. Yeah, I think the former is mor= e likely. =F0=9F=98=8A=20 See y=E2=80=99all in San Diego this week,=20 Tim=20 On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht wrote:=20 >=20 > This set of trendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data=20 > stops in 2015. Does anyone have more recent data?=20 >=20 > https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-An= d-Projected.php=20 >=20 > I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at about=20 > $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere?=20 >=20 > ...=20 >=20 > I am under the impression that many IXPs remain very successful,=20 > states without them suffer, and I also find the concept of doing micro=20 > IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achievable with cheap gear.=20 > Finer grained cross connects between telco and ISP and IXP would lower=20 > latencies across town quite hugely...=20 >=20 > PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bundling 3=20 > BGP AS numbers at a time, as of the end of this year, also.=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.h= tml=20 > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos=20 ------=_Part_958_1547698835.1697377301596 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div style=3D'font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; colo= r: #000000'>Houston is tricky as due to it's geographic scope, it's quite e= xpensive to build an IX that goes into enough facilities to achieve meaning= ful scale. CDN 1 is in facility A. CDN 2 in facility B. CDN 3 is in facilit= y 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://w= ww.midwest-ix.com


From: "= Tim Burke" <tim@mid.net>
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmai= l.com>
Cc: "Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the te= chnical aspects heard this time!" <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "l= ibreqos" <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.or= g>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 10:45:47 PM
Subject:= Re: transit and peering costs projections

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

Sadly, IXP=E2=80=99s are seemingly tur= ning 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 H= ouston 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=E2=80=99s several thou= sand 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 f= or just a little bit more.

Fortunately, for us as an eyeball networ= k, 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 connec= t and a QSFP if you=E2=80=99re in the right DC, with Google and some others= being the outliers.

So for now, we'll keep paying for transit to ge= t to the others (since it=E2=80=99s about as much as transporting IXP from = Dallas), and hoping someone at Google finally sees Houston as more than a t= hird rate city hanging off of Dallas. Or=E2=80=A6 someone finally brings a = worthwhile IX to Houston that gets us more than peering to Kansas City. Yea= h, I think the former is more likely. =F0=9F=98=8A

See y=E2=80=99all= in San Diego this week,
Tim

On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht= <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> =EF=BB=BFThis set of t= rendlines was very interesting. Unfortunately the data
> stops in 201= 5. Does anyone have more recent data?
>
> https://drpeering.ne= t/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php
>= ;
> I believe a gbit circuit that an ISP can resell still runs at ab= out
> $900 - $1.4k (?) in the usa? How about elsewhere?
>
&= gt; ...
>
> I am under the impression that many IXPs remain ve= ry successful,
> states without them suffer, and I also find the conc= ept of doing micro
> IXPs at the city level, appealing, and now achie= vable with cheap gear.
> Finer grained cross connects between telco a= nd ISP and IXP would lower
> latencies across town quite hugely...>
> PS I hear ARIN is planning on dropping the price for, and bu= ndling 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 T=C3=A4ht CS= O, LibreQos

------=_Part_958_1547698835.1697377301596--