nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP peering question
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 20:04:26 +0200
Speaking as a small ISP with 10 to 20 Gbps peak traffic. We are heavy inbound as a pure eyeball network. We use the route servers. We only maintain direct BGP sessions with a few large peers. Think Google, Netflix, Akamai etc. The reason for this is simply administrative overhead. Every BGP session has to be configured and monitored. We know that it will not move a large percentage of our traffic. We simply do not have the ressources currently when the gain is so little. Anyone who wants to pass traffic efficiently to us can either use the route server or they can peer with Hurricane Electric. The later option will get the traffic to us almost as efficiently as peering directly with us. In this sense we outsourced the peering to them. Regards Baldur Den 11. jul. 2017 18.42 skrev "craig washington" < craigwashington01 () hotmail com>:
Hello, Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP point of view. Thanks.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP peering question, (continued)
- Re: BGP peering question cyrus ramirez via NANOG (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP peering question William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bob Evans (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Ethan E. Dee (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question William Herrin (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question Bob Evans (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP peering question craig washington (Jul 14)
- Re: BGP peering question Owen DeLong (Jul 13)
- Re: BGP peering question H I Baysal (Jul 14)