nanog mailing list archives
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
From: John Dupuy <jdupuy-list () socket net>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 15:17:56 -0500
At 07:48 AM 5/5/2006, Peter Cohen wrote:
On 5/4/06, Aaron Glenn <aaron.glenn () gmail com> wrote:On 5/4/06, bmanning () vacation karoshi com <bmanning () vacation karoshi com> wrote:> > why would anyone do that? > > --bill > Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than they would for simple transit. aaron.glennJohn: Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing than speaking... Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit vs. best effort peering? Even that has some issues, the one that jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below: AS#x $--SLA-->Transit ok... But... AS#x $--SLA-->Transit <-(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA---> My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA that you would be paying, since after that the packet switches to no money packets on a paid connection, pushing out the issue for things sent down that pipe... Peter Cohen
It was not about the SLA, although in theory, buying transit should give the provider more incentive to help.
The off-list discussion was more about avoiding the dependency problem of peerings. A "good" peering involves multiple points of geographically diverse interconnections. The number and location of these interconnections would depend on the unique combination of architectures of the two peers. If an AS does not have the traffic levels to justify multiple connections into a neighboring AS, relying on a single interconnection point is a problem. Even if the interconnection does not go down, it might not be a good way to reach particular networks in the other AS. Instead, it might be wiser to "tune" traffic via a different neighbor using transit.
In other words, it gives you the best of both worlds. Most traffic travels directly to/from the SFP provider that serves the corresponding networks (like a peer). However, one can use the transit option at will for particular routes. And, one can use transit via the other SFPs should any transit to an SFP fail (fiber cut, etc.)
Given that transit is pretty cheap, it seems more cost effective, at lower traffic levels, to purchase single transit interconnections to all the SFPs than attempt true peering at a much larger number of interconnections to those same SFPs.
This is getting pretty theoretical, but I was curious if such a business model was attempted. The original SAVVIS did this in part long ago, but to just three neighbors. (I think they are now part of C&W now...I can't keep track of all these mergers.) It sounds like Internap is pretty close to this model, although I don't believe they have transit to all nine (if my SFP count is correct).
John
Current thread:
- Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?), (continued)
- Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) John Dupuy (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) bmanning (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Jon Lyons (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Martin Hannigan (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Brandon Ross (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Jon Lyons (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Aaron Glenn (May 04)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Peter Cohen (May 05)
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Michael . Dillon (May 05)
- Message not available
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) Todd Vierling (May 05)
- Message not available
- Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?) John Dupuy (May 05)
- Re: Tier 2 - Lease? bmanning (May 02)
- Message not available
- Re: Tier 2 - Lease? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 03)
- Re: Tier 2 - Lease? Marshall Eubanks (May 03)
- Re: Tier 2 - Lease? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 03)
- Re: Tier 2 - Lease? Martin Hannigan (May 03)