North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: PAIX
Thus spake "E.B. Dreger" <[email protected]> > DD> 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance > DD> peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product > DD> so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are > DD> using this. But apparently CFOs love it > > Uebercheap longhaul would _favor_ the construction of local > exchanges. Incorrect. Cheap longhaul favors a few centralized exchanges. If there is no economic value in keeping traffic local, it is in carriers' interests to minimize the number of peering points. > Let's say I pay $100k/mo port and $10M/mo loop... obviously, I > need to cut loop cost. If an exchange brings zero-mile loops to > the table, that should reduce loop cost. Anyone serious will > want a good selection of providers, and the facility offering the > most choices should be sitting pretty. Most vendor-neutral colos have cheap zero-mile loops. > Likewise, I agree that expensive longhaul would favor increased > local peering... but, if local loop were extremely cheap, would > an exchange be needed? It would not be inappropriate for all > parties to congregate at an exchange, but I'd personally rather > run N dirt-cheap loops across town from my private facility. What is the cost of running N loops across town, vs. the cost of pushing that traffic to a remote peering location and back? Be sure to include equipment, maintenance, and administrative costs, not just circuits. > The above are "big bandwidth" applications. However, they do not > inherently require exchanges... _local_ videoconferencing, yes. > Local security companies monitoring cameras around town, yes. > Video or newscasting, yes. None of these applications require local exchanges. There is a slight increase in end-to-end latency when you must use a remote exchange, but very few applications care about absolute latency -- they only care about bandwidth and jitter. > Distributed content, yes. (If a traffic sink could pull 80% of its traffic from > a local building where cross-connects are reasonably priced...) Distributed content assumes the source is topologically close to the sink. The most cost-efficient way to do this is put sources at high fan-out areas, as this gets them the lowest _average_ distance to their sinks. This doesn't necessarily mean that putting a CNN mirror in 100,000 local exchanges is going to reduce CNN's costs. S
|