[NNagain] transit and peering costs projections

[Bill Woodcock]

Exactly.  Speed x distance = cost.  This is _exactly_ why IXPs get set up.  To avoid backhauling bandwidth from Dallas, or wherever.  Loss, latency, out-of-order delivery, and jitter.  All lower when you source your bandwidth closer.

                                -Bill



> On Oct 15, 2023, at 06:12, Tim Burke <tim at 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!
> 
>> On Oct 14, 2023, at 23:03, Ryan Hamel <ryan at 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 at nanog.org> on behalf of Tim Burke <tim at mid.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2023 8:45 PM
>> 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>
>> 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 at 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231015/1ed98771/attachment.sig>