Local Peering Points
Matthew Petach
mpetach at netflight.com
Sat May 31 08:18:55 UTC 1997
>
>
> I've been having an offline debate and wanted to take a quick
> lithmus test...Mostly aimed at the folks who don't currently
> peer at any of the 'nationally recognized peering points', but I'll
> take answers from anyone...Ya'll are always so short on opinions. :-}
*smile*
And we're always so fast to leap in with them, even when
we're still 200 messages behind, and not likely to catch
up before responding.
> If someone presented you with the following options:
>
> 1) $X connect to a local peering point and peer with other
> local/regional ISPs (MLPA) You retain current transit.
> 2) $X+$Y connect to a local peering point and peer with other
> local/regional ISPs plus the host (a decent sized national
> carrier) You retain current transit.
> 3) $X+$Y+$Z Purchase transit from the host, not including access
> to the local peering points
>
> Would purchasing #3 prevent or discourage you from purchasing #1 and
> would purchasing #1 or #2 prevent or discourage you from purchasing
> #3? How do folks feel about the concept of local peering points?
Much of this depends on the relative orders of magnitude for
X, Y, and Z. If X is relatively small compared to Z, I don't
think many people would even have to think once before purchasing
both #3 and #1, so long as there was no contractual limitation
on what other peering could be obtained when purchasing option #3.
Assuming a reasonable transit carrier already, #2 would definitely
preclude #3. There's greater benefit (IF you already have a good
transit carrier) in the redundancy afforded by hearing routes
from multiple sources, and having multiple outbound announcements.
If a peering session drops in #2, only that peer loses your
announcements. Case #3, peer drops, you lose everything at that
location. :(
Local peering points are best used for just that. Exchange
traffic with others in your area. I don't think LOCAL exchange
points should be used as places to try to offload traffic destined
for far-reaching endpoints multiple hops away. That's what transit
carriers are for, and I think transit carriage of traffic out of
local regions is only going to increase, as the major players
stop seeing value at the local exchange points. It's a great
market for a company that wants to stop selling to end-users,
and who simply wants to provide transit pipes to regional and
local exchange points.
Of course, it's past 1am, and I'm just babbling, so feel free
to totally ignore this. :)
> Comments, public or private, are, of course, welcome.
> bob iii (not speaking for anyone but myself, & certainly not my employer...)
>
Matt Petach,
barely able to speak for himself, let alone an employer.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list