Connectivity Costs is one of our most successful workflows and it's always difficult to pick from the numerous feature requests open for it. This time around, we're adding Backbone Costs to the workflow, as it was one of the most demanded extensions. We took a bit longer than initially planned, because we had to completely modify the data model between providers and cost groups, and then migrate it. But, now it's here! Read on for the details. 

Workflow Terminology

In the entire workflow, we are going to refer to two types of costs: Edge Costs vs Backbone Costs. In our product terminology:

• Edge Costs: represent costs for interfaces facing the outside of your network – they are associated with Transit, IX, Peering, Direct Connects, etc....
• Backbone Costs: this is the new type of costs that this update workflow brings

The Edge Costs family represents costs at the edge of the network, i.e. to interconnect it to the rest of the internet. These are usually metered based on a price per consumed Mbps, with variations on the computation method and some amount of committed monthly bandwidth. Industry best practices require practitioners to evaluate these with a common measurement: Price/Mbps. This is what the initial releases of this workflow focused on.

Today, we're introducing Backbone Costs: This new family of costs represents portions of networks, most of the time points-to-points used to extend the network by renting physical infrastructure to a provider. Examples of these can be: Ethernet WDM Wavelengths, Dark Fiber Rent, Dark Fiber IRUs... Those links are rarely metered, usually have a fixed monthly rend, and practitioners do not want their costs computed as part of the Edge Cost/Mbps. Some of the reasons these links are traditionally excluded from Cost/Mbps computation are:

1. they very rarely come with a Committed Rate constraint
2. they don't depict interconnection costs, which Edge Costs do 

For the reasons above, we made the choice of treating these differently in the Connectivity Costs UX.

Changing the data-model to unlock new features

In the previous iteration of the workflow, the Connectivity Type attribute (Transit, IX, Free Peering, Paid Peering...) was an attribute of the Provider object – and it created multiple issues requiring this change.

This meant you could only have one Connectivity Type per Provider, which doesn't model reality: one may purchase both Transit and Point-to-Point backbone links from the same provider.

We wanted our users to be able to see costs for a given provider as a breakdown of "Edge Costs" and "Backbone Costs", but also at a global level, where we heard from our customers that they wanted to compute the budget for Edge Costs and Backbone Costs separately.

We went ahead and rebuilt the data-model behind the workflow, and while in Rome, we added a few Cost Group Attributes that our users had been asking for, and migrated our entire customers data set behind the scenes, as well as the computations that use it.

You'll notice that the Connectivity Type attribute is now part of the Cost Group object, and you'll also notice that we've added useful attributes such as Circuit ID (particularly useful for point-to-points) as well as Contract ID to back-reference the vendor contract in the object.

How are Backbone Cost Groups different ?

As mentioned earlier, Backbone Costs aren't pulled into monthly Cost/Mbps computations; therefore, we had to split every screen between Edge Costs and Backbone Costs, which you will notice on numerous screens:

Both the Connectivity Costs landing page and Providers pages now show a split of both – you'll notice the split on the top header strip.

On the Providers landing screen cost chart, you'll be able to look at cost either by provider (without Edge vs. Backbone split) or by "Edge vs Backbone" where you can now see the split evolving every month.

Additionally, the summary tables on both the Provider landing screen and on Provider details screen are now split in two: an Edge Costs table, and a Backbone Costs table.

The screenshot below shows these two tables in the case no Edge Costs are registered, for compactness.

Changes in the Provider Configuration screen

As we tested the feature with a sample set of customers, we realized the average number of Edge Cost Groups (aka transit contracts or such) could be dwarfed by the number of point-to-point links. Because of this, we had to re-think the Provider Configuration summary screen and make it more scalable. This included some changes such as increasing the density of cards displayed on that screen, adding search, and filtering screens – see for yourself below.

What does the future hold?

There's a lot more changes sprinkled throughout the workflow that aren't discussed in this article and we'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback after you've taken it for a spin, so let us know what you think.

There's more in our back pocket around costs that'll be released in the months to come, so stay tuned, because it's going to get really exciting real soon!!!