North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Peering - Benefits?
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and 'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the amount of traffic you peer off.
One of us is confused.
Transit is _part_ of COGS, at least for most of the group reading this list. Finding transit "cheaper than your COGS" just means cheaper than you get it now. And that in no way way means you should dump peering. What if peering is cheaper than transit?
The part where we do agree is that most people cannot figure out their COGS. And you might even convince me that "you don't know what peering really costs you" is a valid reason to shy away from it. But that is not what you said.
Assuming you can figure your actual costs, and peering is at least break even with transit, I would suggest you peer. If peering is not cheaper, then I would suggest not doing it. (Obviously a generalization - there are corner cases which go against the rule.) And if you cannot figure your actual costs, it is much safer to stick with the more simple solution - i.e. transit.
To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are almost always better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering.
That is a pretty broad statement.
Not that I think you are wrong.... I honestly am not sure at this point. (Mostly 'cause I'm not sure who would e-mail NANOG asking about it. :-)
-- TTFN, patrick
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Paul Stewart <[email protected]> wrote:Hi there...