From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pj1-x102c.google.com (mail-pj1-x102c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D688B3CB37; Sun, 15 Oct 2023 00:19:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x102c.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-27d3c886671so1653340a91.3; Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:19:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697343572; x=1697948372; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=BnTpoi1mbXv/3N2mAnJXn3R6aXsWj4qbIm1nH1g4/MI=; b=jLX293pym3e9o1bH2zdFYMOu1WhND3aUg84a2AbZV1tAbJduvleFtrCvVIOdoroeOP LbBLCZth39kOqYVII8I7HG+LqZJsV1FAkoBAFTj+cyHaQAG5MXGnBAWMHZfFhVhAnIg2 mLPv4BfDNhnFFQHuXJOSjQ8NHsakHIe0IAg55hVVp5mDW5wBerPKEHXr3X0v/W0554Y5 0ghEgruOKv0jmslMjcIJT7cbrO1u5O8ZoZsh2QiNKDB2F7jUj5D/Q1EwyY/Dn4zIArn2 Nkgf1lbv5WHBQVQqPU5tvow7uHGO5jUFbITnkMBjR7QPAPtsOJ1sq7BMHXNcKVh6fgjh evWQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697343572; x=1697948372; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=BnTpoi1mbXv/3N2mAnJXn3R6aXsWj4qbIm1nH1g4/MI=; b=vLtrvU0JPkCtByQumCs1CXDJrJYhjKnykidCa8vXVuX0mu83/ZqkO1Z7ZkB5rg+qv3 hWl7YIpUroe32GqwOItG3WZvXnLlH2j43VVdQuG+RzaGKaEhD/4L/Ylyvez+IGxFlSiW bxZUwJN3aVAwG+JOgJ4t4stdayWitqyme2gDbcLjluEtPzgIdLMgfQLtqGxUJF3aj4jJ lMGmIZ2YEL3obbgX5vEdyF3PfGeHPgufVrQRwkBGZjUIDHn7kOd+ptJZHsuKB0vTJA+3 cQnS5+1x1eWL2dHU/Zh4uCw2TpNOgkYduxaImjd65X3q9yYBYhqMgEhprKgasxKEnkXU qm/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxrOcn2/I+eio/kcQeIFDxbwWKsqEHAbIJchyX5Ero4hV54brTi 9Q2qPEwA+Q1YToQDVmMnIxcmi8CqdsYJDypnTZM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGC+REM3h1H24TWKyGZZ+uvcmmGMAErn1UoshQ064HnUI8isOFFBmtpmgnegWEWvC6RyaLCNZQ+6UC+BIv1Gfg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:9511:b0:26c:e606:f455 with SMTP id t17-20020a17090a951100b0026ce606f455mr29250904pjo.36.1697343571705; Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:19:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <78D8577D-148B-4EB1-993C-62D42521791A@mid.net> In-Reply-To: <78D8577D-148B-4EB1-993C-62D42521791A@mid.net> From: Dave Taht Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 21:19:17 -0700 Message-ID: To: Tim Burke Cc: Ryan Hamel , =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back=21_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspect?= =?UTF-8?Q?s_heard_this_time=21?= , libreqos , NANOG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 04:19:33 -0000 On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 9:12=E2=80=AFPM Tim Burke wrote: > > It=E2=80=99s better for customer experience to keep it local instead of a= dding 200 miles to the route. All of the competition hauls all of their tra= ffic up to Dallas, so we easily have a nice 8-10ms latency advantage by kee= ping transit and peering as close to the customer as possible. > > Plus, you can=E2=80=99t forget to mention another ~$10k MRC per pair in D= F 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 wrote: > > =EF=BB=BF > 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 on behalf of Tim= Burke > Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 8:45 PM > To: Dave Taht > Cc: Network Neutrality is back! Let=C2=B4s make the technical aspects hea= rd this time! ; libreqos ; NANOG > 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 fo= r a good bit less than $900 on the wholesale market. > > Sadly, IXP=E2=80=99s are seemingly turning into a pay to play game, with = rates almost costing as much as transit in many cases after you factor in l= oop costs. > > For example, in the Houston market (one of the largest and fastest growin= g 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. > > Fortunately, for us as an eyeball network, there are a good number of maj= or content networks that are allowing for private peering in markets like H= ouston for just the cost of a cross connect 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 get to the others (since it= =E2=80=99s about as much as transporting IXP from Dallas), and hoping someo= ne at Google finally sees Houston as more than a third rate city hanging of= f of Dallas. Or=E2=80=A6 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. =F0=9F=98=8A > > See y=E2=80=99all in San Diego this week, > Tim > > On Oct 14, 2023, at 18:04, Dave Taht wrote: > > > > =EF=BB=BFThis 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=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fdrp= eering.net%2Fwhite-papers%2FInternet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Project= ed.php&data=3D05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd3198= 80%7C81c24bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknow= n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI= 6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3DnQeWrGi%2BblMmtiG9u7SdF3JOi1h9Fni7xXo%2FusZ= RopA%3D&reserved=3D0 > > > > 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=3Dhttps%3A%= 2F%2Fnetdevconf.info%2F0x17%2Fnews%2Fthe-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html&dat= a=3D05%7C01%7Cryan%40rkhtech.org%7Cc8ebae9f0ecd4b368dcb08dbcd319880%7C81c24= bb4f9ec4739ba4d25c42594d996%7C0%7C0%7C638329385118876648%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG= Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C= 3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3DROLgtoeiBgfAG40UZqS8Zd8vMK%2B0HQB7RV%2FhQRvIcFM%3D&re= served=3D0 > > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos --=20 Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.htm= l Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos