[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IX in France
- Subject: IX in France
- From: jared at puck.nether.net (Jared Mauch)
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:00:51 -0500
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <DFB728D80D51BC489529E01B6D924D8FDC29@DB3PRD0402MB119.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <7A848D4888ADA94B8A46A17296740133B38D4AE3E2@DEXTER.oasis-tech.local> <[email protected]>
On Feb 23, 2012, at 12:39 PM, virendra rode wrote:
> I understand this is not true peering relationship, however its an
> interesting way to obtain exchange point routes and I understand this is
> nothing new.
<mini-rant>
I've found people who use the term 'peering' to mean something different than what I personally interpret it to mean.
eg: "We have peering with 4 carriers at our colocation facility where you can place gear"
Translation: We have blended IP transit from 4 carriers, or you can directly connect to them as needed.
I understand why they call it this, because "I configured peering with Level3/Cogent" on my router, etc. The difference is in the policy. What you're speaking of is someone selling transit, which is perfectly fine over various IXes, you generally are prohibited from 'selling next-hop', i.e.: you have to bear the cost on the IX port of the forwarding.
</mini-rant>
Buying transit isn't as dirty as people think it is, sometimes its the right business decision. If you connect to an IX for $4000/mo at gig-e, you might as well buy transit at $4/meg on that same port IMHO. You're unlikely to be using the port at 100% anyways at the IX, so your cost-per-meg there needs to properly reflect your 95% or whatnot.
- Jared