Peering - Benefits?

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Fri Oct 31 12:00:24 CDT 2008


On Oct 31, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:

> Why does the controversy word keep coming up?  You're the third person
> now to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the third  
> time
> , NO I AM NOT.
>
> And again, I *do* understand the issues at hand - although some new
> viewpoints I hadn't considered before came up and thank you.
>
> My question should have read specifically - "what points do you make
> with senior management to move towards larger, more diverse peering
> options compared to today?"
>

Refer them to the Cogent / Sprint thread also occurring on NANOG.

(I know it is too late to enter but I thought this was too apropos to  
pass up.)

Regards
Marshall


> Thank you however - I do have all the info I require and we're moving
> ahead...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Paul
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:tomb at byrneit.net]
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:34 PM
> To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits?
>
> As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it
> seem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question,  
> which
> usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues, or is an  
> attempt to
> provoke controversy.
>
> So far, most of the discussion has focused on peering as a substitute
> for transit.
>
> The idea behind peering is not that the peer takes your traffic  
> destined
> for other networks, but that you each deliver the traffic destined for
> each other directly, without the need to transit.
>
> This should save BOTH of you $ on transit, reduce routing complexity  
> for
> the peered networks, make troubleshooting traffic issues between the
> networks easier, and improve user experience.
>
> Common examples of where peering makes a lot of sense are:
>
> Major hosting providers to major national end-user networks.
>
> CDNs to end-user networks.
>
> Local data centers and DR facilities to metropolitan Ethernet  
> providers.
>
> Hosting facilities to networks that service certain specific user
> communities, such as local realty MLS systems to the local cable and  
> DSL
> providers.
>
> If you're using peering for transit, you're kind of missing the point,
> and introducing a lot of potential network (route leakage or excessive
> route prepends) and business (at what point does a transit imbalance
> become unfair) problems.
>
> IMO, peer for direct delivery, use transit for all else.
>
> YMMV
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vijay gill [mailto:vgill at vijaygill.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:20 PM
>> To: Paul Stewart
>> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
>>
>> This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
>> because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
>> for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
>> peering.  There are some small arguments to be made for latency and
>> 'cheap/free' peering if you are already buying transit at an exchange
>> and your port/xconn fee is cheaper than your capital/opex for the
>> amount of traffic you peer off.
>>
>> To be completely realistic, at current transit pricing, you are  
>> almost
>> always better off just buying transit from two upstreams and calling
>> it done, especially if you are posting to nanog asking about peering.
>>
>> /vijay
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Paul Stewart
>> <pstewart at nexicomgroup.net> wrote:
>>> Hi there...
>>>
>>> I'm in a meeting next week to discuss settlement-free peering
> etc.....
>>> always an interesting time.  A push is on (by myself) to get into
>> other
>>> physical locations and participate on the peering exchanges.
>>>
>>> Besides costs, what other factors are benefits to peering?
>>>
>>> I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of
>> appealing
>>> reasons etc. such as:
>>>
>>> -control over routing between networks
>>> -security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree)
>>> -latency/performance
>>>
>>>
>>> Just looking for other positive ideas etc...;)
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------
>>>
>>> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> entity
>> to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged
>> material. If you received this in error, please contact the sender
>> immediately and then destroy this transmission, including all
>> attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same. Thank
>> you."
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or  
> entity to which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or  
> privileged material. If you received this in error, please contact  
> the sender immediately and then destroy this transmission, including  
> all attachments, without copying, distributing or disclosing same.  
> Thank you."
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list