Akamai AANP minimum traffic?

Thu Feb 22 20:47:59 UTC 2024

Yep, can confirm the same thing. Rather connect over PNI when possible instead of using caches anyway, less hardware that we have to keep in colos, not to mention the associated liabilities. 

> On Feb 22, 2024, at 12:55, John Stitt <jstitt at hop-electric.com> wrote:
> 
> I can't speak with authority since I'm not with Akamai, but I requested a cache maybe a year or so ago. At the time I was told they were moving away from caching unless you were doing well over 100Gbps consistently, just due to the massive scale of their data not lending itself well to caching in smaller installs. Their cache hit percentages were getting lower all the time.
> 
> They were really pushing for doing PNI or hitting them over an IXP instead.
> 
> It's possible something has changed though, just wanted to throw my experience out in case it helps.  Can't hurt to reach out and make a request and see what they tell you directly. I got a response pretty quickly and they were nice about it.
> 
> John Stitt
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jstitt=hop-electric.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Tom Samplonius
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 12:29 PM
> To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Akamai AANP minimum traffic?
> 
> [You don't often get email from tom at samplonius.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
> 
>  Does anyone know what the minimum traffic is to qualify for an Akamai AANP cache?
> 
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you are not expecting this message contact the sender directly via phone/text to verify.
> 