PLNOG16: Public IX is the tip of the Internet Iceberg. The 9:1 PNI rule, Martin Atkinson

Confidential – © 2016 Equinix Inc. Equinix.com 1
AMS-IX Ashburn Atlanta Chicago CIXP Dallas DE-CIX ECIX
France-IX INEX IXManchester Geneva Hong Kong
JPIX Tokyo JPIX Osaka JPNAP Tokyo JPNAP Osaka
KleyReX LINX LONAP Los Angeles Melbourne
Miami MIX-IT NETNOD New York NL-IX
NSW-IX Osaka Palo Alto Paris
PTT.br Sao Paulo PTT.br Rio de Janeiro
Seattle Silicon Valley SIX SOLIX
STHIX SWISS-IX TORIX
Toronto Vienna USA
Singapore Tokyo
Sydney UAE-IX
VIC-IX
Warsaw
Zurich
Peering Location Matters

“Platform Equinix”

Equinix Metro Locations Worldwide

DC
NY
CH
DA
SV, PA-IX
LINX, LONAP, NL-IX DE-CIX, KLEYREX, ECIX, NL-IX
SG
SY, NSW-IX
PTT.BR SP
MI
TY, JPIX, JP-NAP
TO, TORIXSE. SIX
HKUAE-IX
PA, NL-IX, France-IX
ME, VIC-IX
PTT.BR RJ
OS, JPIX, JP-NAPATLA
GRX
GRX
Equinix Operates or Hosts the World’s Largest Internet Exchanges
22EXCHANGES
27PARTNERS
WA, PLIX
GRX
NETNOD Se, STHIX, SOLIX
IXManchester
MIX
Operate Equinix Internet Exchange with or without hosted partners
No Equinix Internet Exchange, only hosted partners

IP Transit
IN THE BEGINNING
THERE WAS

1200+
Look for locations offering a large choice of IP Transit Providers
average number of networks in
Equinix’s top 10 data center
campuses
145
150
networks globally
data centers globally
Co-located Transit provider density in any location always drives competitive pricing

Network-dense campuses minimise transit costs
Note: Assumes 400Mbps Commit in New York.
Source: Telegeography
•  The presence of an Internet Exchange
exerts a downward pressure on Transit
Prices
•  The density of network service providers
increases competition among those
providers, which also drives Transit Prices
down.
•  As a result of the competitive pressures,
transit pricing can be as much as 75% lower
than in the general market.
Transit pricing can be 75% lower than in local and regional markets

Regional Median vs lowest local Transit prices in Mbps, Q1/Q2 2015*.
NSP density & IX Presence drives Competitive Transit pricing
*Source: Telegeography IPT Stats Series and IP Transit Pricing Database, based on 10GbE / 10Gbps Committed Data Rate.
NY
$0.66
FR
$0.3
LD
$0.3
SP
$9.0
DX
$10
SG
$2.0
SY
$7.0
$1.47
Median
$1.39
Median
$1.42
Median
$22.30
Median
$6.45
Median
HK
$2.95
$6.2
Median
$27
Median
$56.50
Median

In all locations IP Transit prices continue to fall
100 GigE takes prices to new lows in London & NY
IP Transit Prices by Committed Data Rate for 10
GigE Ports in London per Carrier, Q2 2015
Source: Telegeography IP Transit Analysis 2015
Source: Telegeography IP Transit Analysis 2015
Median Global IP Transit Prices per Mbps, 10 Gigabit
Ethernet, Q2 2012-Q2 2015

$ 0.10
USD/Mbps/Month*
100 GigE Port in London, 100 Gbps Commit
One answer to commoditization of NSP core business, leverages Enterprise
digital transformation with global co-location, Interconnection, Cloud access,
IT Outsourcing, IOT: The “Interconnection Oriented ArchitectureTM”.
- Not the focus of this presentation, but Inquiries later are welcome.
In all locations IP Transit prices continue to fallIn all locations IP Transit prices continue to fall
*Source – Telegeography IP Transit Pricing Feb 2016

Five essentials
of peering planning
1.  Plan for 20+% future traffic growth
annually
2.  Include peering as part of IP traffic growth
strategy
3.  Plan for a blend of transit, public and
private peering according to traffic
volumes.
4.  Understand the cost and flexibility
implications of campus peering vs.
distributed peering
5.  Expect private peering traffic to outgrow
public peering traffic in the longer-term.

Peering Essential #1

Plan for 20+% future traffic growth annually
Failure to plan for future growth can result in lower network performance, higher costs, and negative
customer impact
* Source: Cisco Visual Networking Index: 2014
•  Global IP traffic growth is forecast to grow
at 21% CAGR through 2018*
•  Growth in peak traffic is increasing faster
than average traffic – peak traffic will grow
3.4x vs. average traffic at 2.8x between
2013 and 2018*
•  Typical consumer broadband speeds will
grow almost 3x between 2013 and 2018 –
from 16Mbps to 42Mbps*

Proportion of Internet traffic by region
Global IP Growth is uneven. Higher Growth = More Opportunity
38%
42%
32%
40%
39%
28%
Source: CAGR in average Internet traffic 2011 - 2015. Telegeography Global Internet Geography Capacity and Traffic Trends, August 2015.

Include peering as part of IP traffic growth strategy
Peering is consistently replacing transit
Source: Telegeography
Peering is consistently replacing
transit on a global basis
Peering continues to be an attractive way to lower
bandwidth costs. Transit price declines globally are
slowing .
Market share for
transit is declining,
being replaced by
peering
*Improving latency also motivates peering but typically cost is the primary driver

Internet Exchange
IP Transit
Private Peering
Plan for a blend of transit, public and private peering according to
traffic volumes

Operating all three IP Transport options minimizes cost at each
phase
Cost
($ MRC)
Total Traffic to given destination (Mbps)
Transit
Private Peering
Public Peering
Private Peering
is lowest cost
Public Peering
is lowest cost
Transit
is lowest cost
•  Transit is most cost effective at lower traffic
volumes since multi-destination traffic shares
the same bandwidth.
•  Public peering works well for mid-tier traffic
due to cost savings vs. transit.*
•  Private peering over cross connects works
well for high traffic volumes due to lowest cost
advantage of direct cross connect.*
NOTE: Actual break-even points can vary
greatly around the globe depending on local,
costs of transit, internet exchange ports, and
cross connects.
IP Traffic Maturity Model
Conceptual Bandwidth Cost Model
Peering Essential #3a
1 2 3
1
2
3
*Improving latency is also a motivation for peering but typically cost is the primary driver
Phase
Phase
Phase

Use the full range of IP Transport options available
Peering Essential #3b
Failing to plan for a blend of all three IP Transport options increases costs and decreases choice
Value
Phase of Maturity
Optimal IP Transport Model
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
IP Transit IP Transit IP Transit
Public
Peering
Add: Public Peering
Use Internet Exchange to connect to peers
•  When used: Typically adopted as bandwidth to particular destinations is
consistent and continues to grow, this serves as the entry point to peering
•  What to look for: A large number of peers on a common platform (Campus
or Distributed Metro Peering).
•  Benefits: A single peering port can reach multiple destinations, making
peering more affordable on a cost per Mbps basis vs. transit
Add: Private Peering
Use Cross Connect to connect to a peer within campus
•  When used: When traffic to single destination becomes large
•  What to look for: Customers should be where there is a large number of
peers in a single campus or building (Campus Peering)
•  Benefits: Can scale to very high bandwidths at extremely low cost per
Mbps vs. public peering
Start: IP Transit / Direct Internet Access
Use Cross Connect to connect to carrier within campus
•  When used: Lower traffic levels to many Internet destinations.
•  What to look for: To achieve greatest bargaining leverage (lowest prices),
customers need to co-locate with the largest number of ISP networks.
•  Benefits: Low cost way to reach all internet destinations on a cost per Mbps
basis.
1
2
3
Public
Peering
Private
Peering
1 2 3
Phase
Phase
Phase

Understand the benefits of campus over distributed peering
Distributed Peering eg AMS-IX, DE-CIX, NL-IX
Transit or
Transport
Transit or
Transport
Transit or
Transport
Campus Peering eg PLIX, Equinix
•  Peers are colocated
among multiple data
centers distributed within
a metro area
•  Metro transport cost is
factored into customer IX
port price.
•  Peers are colocated within
the same data center campus
or building
•  Customer IX port price does
not need to factor in cost of
transport
•  Private peeering through
direct interconnection is an
easy evolutionary path
•  Strength
!  More choices of data center provider
•  Weakness
o  Higher cost structure = higher price ($6,500 for 100G)
o  Requires a switch per data center (cost + complexity + failure)
o  Transport between data centers (cost)
o  No ability to move to private peering
o  Fewer choices of transit providers
•  Strength
!  Lower cost model = lower price ($4,000 for 100G)
!  Requires less networking equipment
!  No transport connections needed
!  Easily offload larger flows to private peering (PNI)
!  Offers maximum choice of transit providers
•  Weakness
o  Less choice of data center provider
Data Center A Data Center B
Data Center C

Essential #5
The Peering “Iceberg”

The vast majority of Internet traffic is exchanged over PNI
AMS-IX Ashburn Atlanta Chicago CIXP Dallas DE-CIX ECIX France-
IX INEX IXManchester Geneva Hong Kong JPIXTokyo JPIX Osaka
JPNAP Tokyo JPNAP Osaka KleyReX LINX LONAP Los Angeles
Melbourne Miami MIX-IT NETNOD New York NL-IX NSW-IX Osaka
Palo Alto Paris PTT.br Sao Paulo PTT.br Rio de Janeiro Seattle Silicon
Valley SIX SOLIX STHIX SWISS-IXTORIX Toronto Vienna USA
Singapore Tokyo Sydney UAE-IX VIC-IX Warsaw Zurich
Public Peering
Private Peering (PNI)
AKAMAI AMAZON APPLE DROPBOX
Facebook GOOGLE LIMELIGHT LINKEDIN
Microsoft NETFLIX OVH RACKSPACE
SALESFORCE SOFTLAYER Twitter 1&1
I N T E R N E T B h a r t i A i r t e l B l i z z a r d
Entertainment Bouygues Telecom Cable &
Wireless CARPATHIA CENTURYLINK CHINA
MOBILE Chinacache Cisco Systems
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS COLT
COMCAST COX COMMUNICATIONS
Deutsche Telekom EDGECAST NETWORKS
ELECTRONIC ARTS Etisalat FLAG GTT
Hibernia Hurricane Electric HUTCHISON
GLOBAL IPTP Jaguar Network KDDI KPN
Korea Telecom PacNet PCCW RIM SFR
SINGTEL SWISSCOM TDC TELECOM
ITALIA Telefonica Telekom Austria TeliaSonera
TRIPADVISOR TURK TELECOM VERISIGN
Verizon Vodafone WARGAMING Websense
WIKIMEDIA Yahoo ZAYO
90%

Plan for private peering traffic to outgrow public peering traffic
Private Peering Delivers Highly Scalable Bandwidth
•  For many networks private peering can be 9X larger
traffic volume than public peering*.
•  Private peering allows customers to change
networking technologies independent of the Internet
Exchange provider.
•  Expect private peering traffic to grow at roughly a
20% CAGR.
Selection factors in a peering location
•  Campus peering model (vs. distributed)
•  Number of peers in the campus
Implications
•  Choosing the wrong peering location can result in
costs of $1,500 per connection vs. $350
•  Customers are limited to the functionality supported
by the IX platform
* Source: Equinix study
Worldwide, 9x more IP traffic is peered privately than currently passes over all public IXs*

IX co-location may host large private peering ecosystems

Summing it all up...

Transit: Seek NSP-dense ecosystems. Competitive pressures
among co-located network service providers significantly drives
down costs for transit buyers.
Public Peering: Seek the leading Internet Exchange. In Poland
PLIX offers you access to the largest local peering communitiy.
Worldwide, Equinix offers the same in all key locations.
Private Peering: Seek Independant carrier-neutral co-location
space with the largest number of ASNs locally. This minimizes the
cost of private peering by providing a low-cost platform that
scales beyond IX speeds.
Campus peering: Seek campus peering, and avoid distributed
Metro peering fabrics where possible. Keep peering costs low by
ensuring peers are just a cross connect away.
The best IP Transport solutions are a blend,
requiring access to a full and competitive choice
of services:

PLIX Selected Peering Member List

Selected Peers @ PLIX* | 279 Members, Peak traffic ~ 470 Gbps
•  3S S.A.
•  Agora
•  Akamai Technologies
•  Amazon.com
•  Aplitt S.A.
•  Atende Software sp. z o.o. (redCDN)
•  ATMAN
•  Audatex (Switzerland) GmbH
•  CDNetworks Inc.
•  Centralny Osrodek Informatyki
Gornictwa S.A. - COIG
•  CloudFlare
•  CommunityDNS Ltd
•  Connected sp. z o.o.
•  Czestochowska Spoldzielnia
Mieszkaniowa Nasza Praca
•  DCENTER.PL
•  Deutsche Telekom / ex GTS Central
Europe
•  Dolsat sp. z o.o.
•  EdgeCast Networks, Inc.
•  ETOP Sp z o.o.
•  ETT
•  EXATEL SA
•  Facebook
•  GaMP Sp. z o.o.
•  GENERACJA.pl
•  Google Inc.
•  Grupa Onet.pl S.A.
•  GTS Poland
•  Hibernia Networks
•  HosTeam s.c.
•  Hurricane Electric
•  i3D.net
•  IBSELEKTRONICS
•  ilario sp. z o.o.
•  Incapsula
•  Infomex Sp. z o.o.
•  Init7
•  IP Transit, Inc.
•  ISC
•  Kaia Global Networks Ltd.
•  Krosnienckie Centrum Informatyczne
"Krosoft"
•  Leaseweb Network
•  Liberty Global
•  Limelight Networks
•  Linx Telecommunications BV
•  Maverick
•  Microsoft
•  MNI Telecom S.A.
•  Multimedia-Polska Południe S.A.
•  NASK
•  NetArt
•  NetAssist
•  Netia S.A.
•  Nitronet Sp. z o.o.
•  OF.PL SP. Z O.O.
•  OpenDNS, Inc.
•  OVH
•  Oxylion S.A.
•  Packet Clearing House
•  "Petrus Polska Spółka z o.o." Spółka
jawna
•  PLIX
•  Polkomtel Sp. z o.o.
•  Polskie Sieci Radiowe
•  Prime-Line
•  Provector
•  RAD-IX
•  Riot Games
•  S-NET Sp. z o.o.
•  SG.GS
•  SIA Lattelecom
•  Sileman Sp. z o.o.
•  SilesNet
•  Sitel sp. z o.o.
•  Skyware Sp. z o.o.
•  Spoldzielnia Mieszkaniowa
Lokatorsko-Wlasnosciowa w
Legionowie
•  Spoldzielnia Telekomunikacyjna OST
•  Stream Communications Sp. z o.o.
•  TKTelekom
•  TransTelecom
•  TVK Telewizja Kablowa
•  Twitch
•  UARNet
•  University of Information Technology
and Management
•  University of Warsaw, ICM
•  Verisign
•  Virtual Line
•  VirtuaOperator
•  WAWER - CePIX.pl
•  WDM
•  Wielunska Spoldzielnia Mieszkaniowa
•  Wnet
•  X-COM Partners
•  XENIUM
•  YNET MANAGEMENT
•  Yureco S.A.
Source: Peering DB – February 2015

PLNOG16: Public IX is the tip of the Internet Iceberg. The 9:1 PNI rule, Martin Atkinson

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a PLNOG16: Public IX is the tip of the Internet Iceberg. The 9:1 PNI rule, Martin Atkinson

Similar a PLNOG16: Public IX is the tip of the Internet Iceberg. The 9:1 PNI rule, Martin Atkinson (20)

Último

Último (11)

PLNOG16: Public IX is the tip of the Internet Iceberg. The 9:1 PNI rule, Martin Atkinson