Re: CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

[Dominik Bay <db () rrbone net>]

On 05/01/2012 08:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Instead, let's focus on the operational impact.  Will the reduced complexity on these networks result in improved 
> performance?  Irrelevant to performance?  Decreased performance?  Maybe even whether that change in performance is an 
> acceptable trade for the lower CapEx/OpEx?  This is relevant since business requirements are the foundation for 
> operational discussions.  Can't buy more 10G ports if the business doesn't support it.

While it would be easier to troubleshoot, I might decrease performance
by the same or likely the same metrics.

Peering via IXP/PNI

pro:
- more, maybe better paths
- more ways to loadbalance traffic over various PNI/IXP
- added redundancy

cons:
- needs grow to maintain sessions
- maintain a contact database for the specific networks
- tools needed to pinpoint issues on node, PNI / IXP, network level


"Feeding" via some bigger peer networks oder classic transit

pro:
- single point of contact
- less sessions to maintain (say 400 sessions for all bigger europe
cities instead of 200 sessions per IXP)
- easier view on traffic flows (depends on your tools though)

cons:
- if a single network breaks, it might have a bigger impact
- not able to (easily) mitigate issues (ceasing announcements to a peer
vs. turning down a transit session)
- troubleshooting mostly outsourced to a 3rd party

It depends on what one needs, and what one wants to pay.

-dominik