nanog mailing list archives
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
From: "Michel Py" <michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:38:07 -0700
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: I assume Vijay meant the cost of a port for private peering, in which case if you private with all your peers and you have a lot of small peers thats going to be a lot of cost for a few kbps of traffic
I'm having trouble parsing this. You connect your FE or GE port to an ISL/802.11q trunk to the colo's/IX switch. Then either a)everyone is in the same broadcast domain (dumb but no config), or there's a VLAN on that trunk from/to you to your peer(s). Save for the colo's/IX administrative/xconnect fee, where's the "lot of cost"? Michel.
Current thread:
- RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST), (continued)
- RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Blaine Christian (Apr 22)
- RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) E.B. Dreger (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Alexei Roudnev (Apr 21)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Apr 20)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Apr 20)
- RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit alex (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Deepak Jain (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Deepak Jain (Apr 23)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Richard Irving (Apr 23)