Hello,
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay
based exchange in your analysis?
Regards,
nenad
Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay
based exchange in your analysis?
I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points 
The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas that I have done the most data collection. The same analysis could be applied to peering across WANs and MANs as compared with buying transit though. It might be interesting provided I can get some market prices for transport and ports.
Why look at ATM? Right now almost everyone I am speaking with is seeing massive drops in transit and transport prices, even below the points I quoted, but with no comparable price drop in ATM ports or transport into an ATM cloud. These forces lead to a point where a connection to an ATM IX makes no sense (from a strictly financial standpoint). I have another 10 folks to walk through the paper to make sure I'm not missing anything in the analysis, and I'll post to the list when the paper is available. If you are interested I'd love to walk you through it to get your take.
One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) "You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an ethernet-based IX." Since the "Effective Peering Bandwidth" is the max peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good point and has now been factored into the model and analysis.
Bill
One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing)
"You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without
counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an
ethernet-based IX." Since the "Effective Peering Bandwidth" is the max
peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good
point and has now been factored into the model and analysis.
Most exchange point users terminate their exchange connections on core
routers in each geographic area so they don't experience any additional
overhead than what they would already have for their core network links.
Even after arbitrarily adding 4% conservative overhead to the gige case,
gige is still way more cost effective.
Mike.
+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+
I'd imagine because no real 'high-speed' FR switch exists (as in, oc12 or
above).
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex@nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --