The industry standard for peering is paying the 95th percentile of egress or ingress depending on whichever is greater. Ingress is free for these clouds because egress > ingress overall.
I've seen this at other providers. We did a competitive pricing exercise at my last company, and our overall cost went down, but the mechanism was per hosts costs went down significantly and egress costs went up significantly, and the per host cost decrease outweighed the egress cost increase.
It still doesn't make sense to charge for ingress, because everybody knows that should be free, unless you're a residential ISP.
bandwidth from cogent at whatever colo you can cross connect to them is wildly cheaper than "i need bandwith to everywhere" bandwidth.
Pfft...
> for peering is paying the 95th percentile of egress or ingress depending on whichever is greater. Ingress is free for these clouds because egress > ingress overall
How about customers pay for actual usage, rather than some [fake] averaged-across-all-customers usage?
It seems entirely reasonable to look more skeptically at cloud providers' exact charges vs cost for egress, particularly when high egress fees might contribute to lock-in, and when the public price sheet vs the preferred customer pricing might differ radically. But asking them to totally restructure the charges, inventing a charge for ingress when their actual total ingress cost is zero and, short of major industry-wide usage pattern changes, will remain zero? Why would you do that?
