From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: Tim Burke <tim@mid.net>
Cc: "Ryan Hamel" <ryan@rkhtech.org>,
"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>
Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:19:17 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA93jw73ooO_zFSka=mmN+gBSA0+NsmNo3uLgJY+pCxjyc9Nhg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78D8577D-148B-4EB1-993C-62D42521791A@mid.net>
On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:12 PM Tim Burke <tim@mid.net> wrote:
>
> It’s better for customer experience to keep it local instead of adding 200 miles to the route. All of the competition hauls all of their traffic up to Dallas, so we easily have a nice 8-10ms latency advantage by keeping transit and peering as close to the customer as possible.
>
> Plus, you can’t forget to mention another ~$10k MRC per pair in DF costs to get up to Dallas, not including colo, that we can spend on more transit or better gear!
Texas's BEAD funding and broadband offices are looking for proposals
and seem to have dollars to spend. I have spent much of the past few
years attempting to convince these entities that what was often more
needed was better, more local IXPs. Have you reached out to them?
> On Oct 14, 2023, at 23:03, Ryan Hamel <ryan@rkhtech.org> wrote:
>
>
> Why not place the routers in Dallas, aggregate the transit, IXP, and PNI's there, and backhaul it over redundant dark fiber with DWDM waves or 400G OpenZR?
>
> Ryan
>
> ________________________________
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech.org@nanog.org> on behalf of Tim Burke <tim@mid.net>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 8:45 PM
> 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>
> Subject: Re: transit and peering costs projections
>
> Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
>
>
> 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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrpeering.net%2Fwhite-papers%2FInternet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nQeWrGi%2BblMmtiG9u7SdF3JOi1h9Fni7xXo%2FusZRopA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> > 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://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnetdevconf.info%2F0x17%2Fnews%2Fthe-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html&data=05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ROLgtoeiBgfAG40UZqS8Zd8vMK%2B0HQB7RV%2FhQRvIcFM%3D&reserved=0
> > Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
--
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-15 4:19 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 [this message]
2023-10-15 4:26 ` dan
2023-10-15 7:54 ` Bill Woodcock
2023-10-15 13:41 ` Mike Hammett
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='CAA93jw73ooO_zFSka=mmN+gBSA0+NsmNo3uLgJY+pCxjyc9Nhg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dave.taht@gmail.com \
--cc=libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=nanog@nanog.org \
--cc=nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=ryan@rkhtech.org \
--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