nanog mailing list archives
Re: Peering - Benefits?
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:00:24 -0400
On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Why does the controversy word keep coming up? You're the third personnow to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the third time, NO I AM NOT. And again, I *do* understand the issues at hand - although some new viewpoints I hadn't considered before came up and thank you. My question should have read specifically - "what points do you make with senior management to move towards larger, more diverse peering options compared to today?"
Refer them to the Cogent / Sprint thread also occurring on NANOG.(I know it is too late to enter but I thought this was too apropos to pass up.)
Regards Marshall
Thank you however - I do have all the info I require and we're moving ahead... Best regards, Paul -----Original Message----- From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:tomb () byrneit net] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:34 PM To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits? As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes itseem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question, which usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is an attempt toprovoke controversy. So far, most of the discussion has focused on peering as a substitute for transit.The idea behind peering is not that the peer takes your traffic destinedfor other networks, but that you each deliver the traffic destined for each other directly, without the need to transit.This should save BOTH of you $ on transit, reduce routing complexity forthe peered networks, make troubleshooting traffic issues between the networks easier, and improve user experience. Common examples of where peering makes a lot of sense are: Major hosting providers to major national end-user networks. CDNs to end-user networks.Local data centers and DR facilities to metropolitan Ethernet providers.Hosting facilities to networks that service certain specific usercommunities, such as local realty MLS systems to the local cable and DSLproviders. If you're using peering for transit, you're kind of missing the point, and introducing a lot of potential network (route leakage or excessive route prepends) and business (at what point does a transit imbalance become unfair) problems. IMO, peer for direct delivery, use transit for all else. YMMV-----Original Message----- From: vijay gill [mailto:vgill () vijaygill com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:20 PM To: Paul Stewart Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits? This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and 'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the amount of traffic you peer off.To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are almostalways better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering. /vijay On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Paul Stewart <pstewart () nexicomgroup net> wrote:Hi there... I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peeringetc.....always an interesting time. A push is on (by myself) to get intootherphysical locations and participate on the peering exchanges. Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering? I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list ofappealingreasons etc. such as: -control over routing between networks -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree) -latency/performance Just looking for other positive ideas etc...;) Cheers! Paul----------------------------------------------------------------------------"The information transmitted is intended only for the person orentityto which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."----------------------------------------------------------------------------"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
Current thread:
- RE: Peering - Benefits?, (continued)
- RE: Peering - Benefits? Paul Stewart (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 30)
- RE: Peering - Benefits? Paul Stewart (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Joe Provo (Oct 29)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Matthew Moyle-Croft (Oct 30)
- RE: Peering - Benefits? Tomas L. Byrnes (Oct 30)
- RE: Peering - Benefits? Paul Stewart (Oct 31)
- RE: Peering - Benefits? Paul Stewart (Oct 31)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Marshall Eubanks (Oct 31)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? vijay gill (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Randy Bush (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 30)
- Re: Peering - Benefits? vijay gill (Oct 30)