4 ms·
If you have fiber and the right transceivers, you can run 100Gbit/s over it. If you need that sort of bandwidth, you'll probably do your own peering because jus
by moreentropy 11y ago
If you have fiber and the right transceivers, you can run 100Gbit/s over it. If you need that sort of bandwidth, you'll probably do your own peering because just paying for traffic will be obscenely expensive.
Chaos Computer Club's 30c3 conference had a 100G fiber link to downtown Hamburg for a couple of days, still 12k users w/ Gigabit ports and a makeshift datacenter with 10g ports couldn't manage to saturate the link:
https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5609_-_en_-_saal_6_-_201312301430_-_infrastructure_review_-_kay_-_peter_stuge_-_florolf_-_sebastian_-_m#video&t=98 https://media.ccc.de/v/30C3_-_5609_-_en_-_saal_6_-_201312301...
- amazon_not 11y agoJust because you have a 100G network does not mean that anybody will peer with you. You pay for transit like everybody else. Even the usual suspects (Netflix, Google, etc.) have their own criteria before they will peer with you.
- moreentropy 11y agoRight. But I doubt that anyone shifting that much traffic just buys 100G internet service to a certain location. If you push out that much you might make use of CDNs, if you consume that much Netflix/Google I guess you meet their criteria and the CDNs talk to you (and place their edge servers in your network).
- amazon_not 11y agoTrue enough. The distinction really comes down to want and need 100G. If you need 100G, you have options and peering is on the table. If you just want 100G, like Rocket Fiber with their 19 buildings, not so much. As to buying transit on a 100G port, obscene is perhaps a bit harsh. Transit cost goes down significantly with volume and there rarely is a need to commit to a full 100G port. In any case price per Mbps is going to be in cents, not dollars.