[LibreQoS] transit and peering costs projections

Sun Oct 15 12:44:29 EDT 2023

Just want to rewind back to the IX map above.  The problem is that it's
really misleading.  Dive down on a number of those (a big number) and they
are registered as an IX but they have few tier1 providers in them.  The
closest one to me is essentially just fed by Zayo.   Not much of an IX when
there's only one path out on one provider...

If big providers, or at least multiple providers linking to other IX'
aren't participating, then the purpose isn't met.  Zayo isn't offering IX
rates in these for lack of competition so the incentive to build out from
there is very low, ie I can get Zayo in a road-side hut for basically the
same price and not have to share access.  I also realize that getting 2-4
providers into a shack in the middle of no-where doesn't make sense either,
but population dictates a lot of this.

I know it's a big ask, getting full size IX access in a microIX, but that's
what big government projects are for.  Get these carriers that are crossing
various jurisdictions to drop transport services, waves or dark viber etc,
into something useful like a school, courthouse, town hall, whatever, and
in that build out link to the two IX's that fiber crossing was going
between.  Just put in the deal that they put in optics aligned with the
population.  Frankly, 40G to most of these areas would be plenty for a
decade or more and 40G optics long distance modules are only a few grand
each.  Maybe $10-15,000 for redundant 40G and they've already run the fiber
as part of that delivery to the facility (double that for really long
runs...).  Schools would be my #1 pick here because it solves a lot of
issues.  Gov pulls in at least 1x 40G to every single incorporated school
and builds access facilities for that (conduits to edges of property etc)
and at some threshold that's 1x40G with 2 providers then 3 providers for
bigger populations and as populations grow.  Standard prices on port and
they are all just a vlan or equiv on the pipe back to the IX.  Basically
these would be like IX extension sites with layer2 ports between provided
by long-haul providers.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2023 at 8:19 AM Tim Burke via LibreQoS <
libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> I’ve found that most of the CDNs that matter are in one facility in
> Houston, the Databank West (formerly Cyrus One) campus. We are about to
> light up a POP there so we’ll at least be able to get PNIs to them. There
> is even an IX in the facility, but it’s relatively small (likely because
> the operator wants near-transit pricing to get on it) so we’ll just PNI
> what we can for now.
>
> On Oct 15, 2023, at 08:50, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> 
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Tim Burke" <tim at mid.net>
> *To: *"Dave Taht" <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard
> this time!" <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>, "libreqos" <
> libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net>, "NANOG" <nanog at 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 at 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> LibreQoS mailing list
> LibreQoS at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/libreqos
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/libreqos/attachments/20231015/71c6bb91/attachment.html>