[Napla] Servicios en los NAPs

Bill Woodcock woody at pch.net
Mon Feb 20 17:50:49 BRT 2006

      On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Yuri Herrera B. wrote:
    > ...estamos explorando alternativas de cobro por tipo de puerto (10, 
    > 100, 1 G) o por tiempo o por tráfico cursado.  ¿Qué experiencias han 
    > tenido en ese sentido?

Offering 10/100/gig ports either at different prices, or based upon 
utilization, is common.  Charging based upon utilization is not.  You have 
to remember that the value of your IX is dependent upon the volume of 
traffic which crosses it, so penalizing participants for passing more 
traffic is a reverse-incentive.  That is, you don't want to charge people 
more money for doing what you want them to do (send more traffic), and 
less money for doing what you _don't_ want them to do (use up a port but 
send less traffic).  Therefore, what generally works best is to charge 
everyone the same price, as low as possible, but to prioritize access to 
higher-speed ports based upon need.  

Also, if you don't charge more money for a faster port, it lessens the 
financial disincentive for participants to upgrade...  Again, the IX works 
better if none of the participants have congested ports, so it's good for 
the IX if participants all upgrade when necessary.  Thus, you don't want 
it to be costly for them to do so.

Anyway, this is how large noncommercial exchanges like Seattle and Toronto 
and Hong Kong do it.  

There are other exchanges, like LINX and AMS-IX, which are noncommercial, 
but maintain very large/expensive staff, and thus they don't present as 
compelling a value proposition as they would if they were able to keep 
their costs under control.  That's why there are competing (less 
expensive) exchanges in London and Amsterdam, but not in Seattle and 


More information about the Napla mailing list