Re: Question on peering strategies

[Marty Strong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are:

- Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct access to them in some other fashion than 
peering (assumedly for enterprises)
- Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area
- Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different time periods

In a traditional peering sense it doesn’t really offer much value.

Just my two pence.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--------------------------------------
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
marty () cloudflare com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 23 May 2016, at 18:53, Reza Motamedi <motamedi () cs uoregon edu> wrote:
>
> I'm glad we are having this discussion.
>
> I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the
> terminology. What Max referred to as  "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix
> markets as "*private VLAN"*, right?
> I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the
> services that they offer [
> http://www.equinix.com/resources/data-sheets/equinix-internet-exchange/]
> Standard Equinix Internet Exchange Features
> • Public VLAN — offers access to all peering participants
> • Supports industry standard IEEE 802.1Q trunking encapsulation
> • Redundant MLPE route servers at each IX Point enabling efficient open
> peering
> • *Private VLAN* (Required: Unicast Peering VLAN enabled) — create a
> private broadcast domain over the public switched infrastructure that can
> be used for direct bi-lateral peering or to create a community of interest
>
> My question is what is the point of having such an option for peering? I
> understand the argument that Owen and Leo have, which is to move the bigger
> portion of traffic away from the IX fabric and keep the IX for smaller
> flows. but why would a pair of networks want a private point-to-point
> connection on a shared switching fabric. Is this just because that shared
> fabric has geographical reach, as in the case of IXReach?
>
> I also see that links provided in this discussion show Europe based
> networks that are using this peering type more often. Is this widely
> accepted that US market is totally different from Europe?
>
>
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the
> > reason you state.
> >
> > In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it
> > does not make
> > sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic.
> > It’s much
> > less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than
> > for both of
> > us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional
> > exchange port.
> >
> > Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of that
> > is to
> > autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other peers,
> > then it
> > makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than for
> > each of
> > us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> > > On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev <maxtul () netassist ua> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
> > >
> > > In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
> > > easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
> > > through some kind of web interface.
> > >
> > > That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> > > interconnects than direct wires.
> > >
> > > On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> > > > Dear Nanogers,
> > > >
> > > > I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
> > > > Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are
> > present
> > > > in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx
> > runs
> > > > an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
> > > > 1) using private cross-connect
> > > > 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
> > > > Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish
> > connections
> > > > both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
> > > >
> > > > I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding
> > is
> > > > that the colocation provider charges the customers for each
> > cross-connect
> > > > in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not
> > be
> > > > economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is
> > the
> > > > primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server
> > the
> > > > public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes
> > sense
> > > > to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
> > > > connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
> > > > insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
> > > >
> > > > Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
> > > > cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
> > > > that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS
> > connection in
> > > > that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm
> > asking
> > > > is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load
> > balancing
> > > > on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
> > > >
> > > > Best Regards
> > > > Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> > > > Graduate Research Fellow
> > > > Oregon Network Research Group
> > > > Computer and Information Science
> > > > University of Oregon