Re: Akamai Peering

[Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net>]

        I'll provide a bit more detail - We have certainly been
standardizing on 100G for a number of years now and have a decreasing
number of devices where 10G is appropriate.

        for public peering we certainly do have an open peering policy,
if you are encountering an issue please reach out and I can identify
what the root cause is.  If you have a ticket number, etc.. that can
help as well.  I don't personally monitor the ticket queue.

        For private interconnect, 100G is the port speed for most of the
americas, some markets may vary.

        For public peering, so much depends on the IX/IXP.  EdgeconneX
in Denver does not have access to the Denver IX and we are working to
extend there.  There's at least 4 different sites in Denver for
interconnection, and it's impractical to be in them all.

        Some more details would be helpful (in private) so we can move
the traffic to a direct path.

        If you have a 10G port and want to swap it to a 100G port, we
should have that conversation.

        - Jared

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 08:27:09AM -0500, Paul Emmons wrote:
> Akamai isn't supporting 10g ports on IXPs.  I'd be surprised if the allowed
> it on PNIs.  As for not being on the IXPs, that's odd.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:23 AM Jawaid Bazyar <jbazyar () verobroadband com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > We had Akamai servers in our data center for many years until a couple
> > years ago, when they said they’d changed their policies and decommissioned
> > the servers.
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand that, maintaining many server sites and being responsible for
> > that hardware, even if you pay nothing for power or collocation, must be
> > costly. And at the time, we didn’t have much traffic to them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Today, however, we’re hitting 6 Gbps with them nightly. Not sure what
> > traffic it is they’re hosting but it’s surely video of some sort.
> >
> >
> >
> > We are in the same data center with them, Edgeconnex Denver, and they
> > refuse to peer because they say their minimum traffic level for peering is
> > 30 Gbps.
> >
> >
> >
> > Their peeringdb entry says “open peering”, and in my book that’s not open
> > peering.
> >
> >
> >
> > So this seems to be exactly backward from where every other major content
> > provider is going – free peering with as many eyeball networks as possible.
> >
> >
> >
> > Google – no bandwidth minimum, and, they cover costs on 1st and every
> > other cross connect
> >
> > Amazon – peers are two Denver IX
> >
> > Apple – peers at two Denver IX
> >
> > Netflix – free peering everywhere
> >
> >
> >
> > And, on top of that, Akamai is not at either of the two Denver exchange
> > points, which push together probably half a terabit of traffic.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is the financial model for Akamai to restrict peering this way?
> > Surely it’s not the 10G ports and optics, which are cheap as dirt these
> > days.
> >
> >
> >
> > Doesn’t this policy encourage eyeballs to move this traffic to their
> > cheapest possible transit links, with a potential degradation of service
> > for Akamai’s content customers?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the insight,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jawaid
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *[image: uc%3fid=1CZG_hGEeUP_KD95fSHu2oBRA_6dkOo6n]*
> >
> > *Jawaid Bazyar*
> >
> > Chief Technical Officer
> >
> > VERO Broadband
> >
> > [image: signature_3735065359]
> >
> > 303-815-1814
> >
> > [image: signature_3363732610]
> >
> > jbazyar () verobroadband com
> >
> > [image: signature_633330923]
> >
> > https://verobroadband.com
> >
> > [image: signature_4057438942]
> >
> > 2347 Curtis St, Denver, CO 80205

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from jared () puck nether net
clue++;      | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.