Re: Amazon peering revisited

[Martin Hannigan <hannigan () gmail com>]

There are also three different ASNs and different policy decision trees;
they all report selective criteria such as minimum of 10GE, multiple
locations, specific locations, etc. Not sure it's as simple as 'getting the
right person' more than it is about meeting the right conditions. Easier
for network operators. Enterprises may be different (and better off with
their upstreams or PacketFabric).

YMMV,

-M<



On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 5:30 PM Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote:

> "For a company like Amazon..."
>
> True, but also, they're at a size where staffing and operating peering
> operations generously has a negligible impact on the fiscal situation of
> the company (or even department).
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Kevin Burke" <kburke () burlingtontelecom com>
> *To: *"Lincoln Dale" <ltd () interlink com au>, "Kelly Littlepage" <
> kelly () onechronos com>
> *Cc: *nanog () nanog org
> *Sent: *Friday, February 4, 2022 3:25:53 PM
> *Subject: *RE: Amazon peering revisited
>
> Have gotten into the habit of making annual peering requests to Amazon
> asking turn up a session on a shared IXP peering.  Once was able to get a
> peering session turned up, no traffic was ever shifted onto it before we
> moved out of that carrier hotel a year or so later.  The amazon peering
> email box does have humans surfing it.
>
>
>
> Over the years a number of network operators have mentioned getting little
> response from Amazon about peering requests.
>
>
>
> For a company like Amazon they have little reason to do peering with small
> scale operators.  They already peer with the tier 1’s and assume I will do
> what I need to balance my bits.  The fancy algorithms they use to balance
> traffic around does allow them to operate a decent network with fewer staff
> and less links to the small ISPs.  Just a network operator here, trying to
> get my bytes across the wire.
>
>
>
> Enjoy your weekend!
>
>
>
> Kevin Burke
>
> 802-540-0979
>
> Burlington Telecom
>
> 200 Church St, Burlington, VT
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+kburke=burlingtontelecom.com () nanog org> *On
> Behalf Of *Lincoln Dale
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:20 PM
> *To:* Kelly Littlepage <kelly () onechronos com>
> *Cc:* nanog () nanog org
> *Subject:* Re: Amazon peering revisited
>
>
>
> WARNING!! This message originated from an *External Source*. Please use
> proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
> responding to this email.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Kelly Littlepage via NANOG <
> nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
> Hi all, a nanog thread started on November 23, 2018 discussed the
> challenges of getting Amazon peering sessions turned up. Has anyone had
> luck since/does anyone have a contact they could refer me to — off-list or
> otherwise? The process of getting PNI in place with other CSPs was
> straightforward, but I haven't heard back from AWS after a month and
> several follow-ups. Our customers would really benefit from us getting this
> sorted.
>
>
>
> There are many folks that here that are in AWS. Assuming you have followed
> what is in https://aws.amazon.com/peering/ (and
> https://aws.amazon.com/peering/policy/) then send me details privately
> about what/when/who and I'll reach out internally to the relevant folks.