North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
Hello, Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay based exchange in your analysis? Regards, nenad >Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 08:11 -0700 (PDT) >From: "William B. Norton" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sender: [email protected] >Delivered-to: [email protected] >Delivered-to: [email protected] >Delivered-to: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > > >Hi again - > >A couple points (based on some interactions with folks privately). > >This is not an ATM is bad, or general ATM-bashing paper. It simply applies >the same Peering Analysis that ISPs are applying to determine if and when >IXes make sense. With the transit prices and transport prices dropping, >this is a reasonable question, worthy of greater analysis than "well, ATM >is expensive so ATM is bad." > >To give you a flavor, given a set of assumptions, OC-3 (155Mbps) transport >into an ATM-based IX has an "Effective Peering Range" (where peering across >them is cheaper than transit) of 75-90Mbps, while given the same >assumptions, Fast Ethernet-based IXes also at OC-3 have an Effective >Peering Range of 40-70Mbps. The "Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange" for this >ATM solution is $122/Mbps while FastE is $80/Mbps. > >At higher capacity the interconnect analysis is more dramatic: Given the >relatively high price point of transport and port cost, the Effective >Peering Range for ATM/OC-12 Peering is a narrow 236Mbps to 375Mbps with a >Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $69/Mbps. The GigE/OC-12 equivalent >range is 109Mbps-466Mbps with a Minimum Cost of Traffic Exchange of $25/Mbps. > >What was unexpected in this analysis was the Effective Peering Range Gap. >When an ISP upgrades the ATM OC-3 to OC-12, the gap between the Effective >Peering Bandwidth of the OC-3 (90Mbps) and the Peering Breakeven Point (the >point at which the Peering Costs are totally offset by the cost savings of >peering vs. transit) at 208Mbps is huge. This 118Mbps gap is where an ISP >should rationally prefer to purchase transit until 208Mbps can be sent in >peering relationships over the ATM fabric, and only then upgrade the >peering connection to OC-12! > >There is also an Ethernet EPR Gap but it is only about 40 Mbps, and once at >the GigE/OC-12 capacity, it gets you an Effective Peering Range up to 475Mbps. > >In any case, this is the analysis that the paper walks through, and since >the spreadsheets are in the paper, one can muck around with the assumptions >and cost points, key of which are: > 1) ATM OC-3 Port Cost $8000/mo, ATM OC-3 Circuit Cost $3000/mo, > ATM OC-12 Port Cost $17000/mo, ATM OC-12 Circuit Cost $8000/mo > 2) FastE Port & Rack Space $2500/mo, OC-3 Circuit $3500/mo, > GigE Port & Rack Price$5000/mo, OC-12 Circuit $7000/mo > 3) Transit Price: if you peer at OC-3, you probably pay $125/Mbps, >peer at OC-12,$110/Mbps > 4) ATM Overhead (aka cell tax): 20% > 5) Assumption that ISP upgrade capacity when avg utilization >75% >Effective Peering BW > >Let me know if you violently object to any of these data points. These are >culled from a lot of conversations in the field. The rest of the paper is >simply plugging these data points into the equations and analyzing the results. > >Bill > >At 04:36 PM 8/7/2002 -0700, William B. Norton wrote: > >>Hi all - >> >>I've been working with a number of ISPs on a research paper that builds on >>the previous peering research papers (Internet Service Providers and >>Peering, A Business Case for Peering, The Art of Peering, Interconnection >>Strategies for ISPs, etc.) that applies the Peering Modelling tools in a >>comparison of ATM and Ethernet-based Internet Exchanges. Both of these >>IXes are compared against each other and against the cost of buying >>transit. The paper applies recent price quotes for transport and transit, >>costs for ATM and Ethernet-based IX participation, to answer the question: >> >> Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? >> >>I'd like to speak with additional ISP Peering Coordinators and Network >>Architects (preferable ones that have experience with peering across both >>ATM and Ethenet-based IXes) to walk through this paper and help me check >>that I have the technical and business details right. I would need about >>20 minutes or so on the phone to walk you through the paper, the financial >>models, the cost points, and get feedback on the conclusions...preferably >>sometime in the next couple weeks. >> >>If you are a Peering Coordinator I think you will find at least a couple >>of findings in this research *very* interesting. In any case, if you can >>help, please send me an e-mail at [email protected] and let me know when we >>could chat. >> >>Thanks - >> >>Bill >> >>PS - As with any these Peering White Papers, this white paper will be >>freely available once enough folks have walked through it and verify that >>we have things right. >> >>------------------------------------------ Abstract >>--------------------------------------------------- >>During the NSFNET transition from the Authorized Use Policy Internet to >>the Commercial Internet, several Network Access Points (NAPs) were created >>to facilitate the traffic exchange between the Internet Service Providers, >>two of which were ATM-based. Internet Service Providers were initially >>required to connect to three of the four NAPs in order to receive NSF >>funds (indirectly through their NSF-sponsored customers) during this >>transition period. >> >>During the years that followed, this requirement was dropped and the costs >>models of Internet Operation have changed dramatically. Technologies such >>as Wave Division Multiplexing and Long Haul Fiber Improvements have led to >>radical a decrease in the cost of transport and a corresponding drop in >>the price of transit. At the same, the cost of peering at ATM-based >>exchange points has not substantially dropped in cost, leading to the >>question in the Peering Coordinator Community: >> >> "Do ATM-based Internet Exchange Points make sense anymore?" >> >>In this paper we apply the peering financial models to this question, >>using current market prices to compare the price of transit against the >>costs of peering at ATM-based NAPs and Ethernet-based Internet Exchange >>Points. We build upon the previous research on Peering by introducing the >>notion of an Effective Peering Range (EPR) to describe the "useful life" >>of an Internet Exchange. We also highlight a potentially costly EPR Gap, >>an interim range between Peering Capacity points where peering is more >>expensive than transit. >> >>The financial models presented that produced the graphs are included in >>the Appendix so that ISPs can apply these cost models to their specific >>situation. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------ >William B. Norton <[email protected]> 650.315.8635 >Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc. >Yahoo Instant Messenger ID: WilliamBNorton >
|