CDNs should pay eyeball networks, too.

Tue May 1 18:23:07 UTC 2012

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