Amazon peering revisited

Sat Feb 5 20:37:21 UTC 2022

For those persons who have not received an answer from the Amazon peering
email addresses, or a BGP session with traffic actually flowing across
it...

Obviously Amazon does not share their own traffic volume criteria for
selecting a peer vs. sending traffic to them over a giant IP transit
provider.

I wonder what the actual threshold is as measured in traffic volume from
netflow data to/from the Amazon AS before they start taking a potential
peer seriously. Obviously if you're somebody big like a regional ILEC or a
cable operator that has half of a major city as your incumbent territory,
it's not even a question, but for smaller ISPs it's an interesting question
to discover where exactly that threshold is.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 13:26, Kevin Burke <kburke at burlingtontelecom.com>
wrote:

> Have gotten into the habit of making annual peering requests to Amazon
> asking turn up a session on a shared IXP peering.  Once was able to get a
> peering session turned up, no traffic was ever shifted onto it before we
> moved out of that carrier hotel a year or so later.  The amazon peering
> email box does have humans surfing it.
>
>
>
> Over the years a number of network operators have mentioned getting little
> response from Amazon about peering requests.
>
>
>
> For a company like Amazon they have little reason to do peering with small
> scale operators.  They already peer with the tier 1’s and assume I will do
> what I need to balance my bits.  The fancy algorithms they use to balance
> traffic around does allow them to operate a decent network with fewer staff
> and less links to the small ISPs.  Just a network operator here, trying to
> get my bytes across the wire.
>
>
>
> Enjoy your weekend!
>
>
>
> Kevin Burke
>
> 802-540-0979
>
> Burlington Telecom
>
> 200 Church St, Burlington, VT
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+kburke=burlingtontelecom.com at nanog.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Lincoln Dale
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:20 PM
> *To:* Kelly Littlepage <kelly at onechronos.com>
> *Cc:* nanog at nanog.org
> *Subject:* Re: Amazon peering revisited
>
>
>
> WARNING!! This message originated from an *External Source*. Please use
> proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
> responding to this email.
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Kelly Littlepage via NANOG <
> nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all, a nanog thread started on November 23, 2018 discussed the
> challenges of getting Amazon peering sessions turned up. Has anyone had
> luck since/does anyone have a contact they could refer me to — off-list or
> otherwise? The process of getting PNI in place with other CSPs was
> straightforward, but I haven't heard back from AWS after a month and
> several follow-ups. Our customers would really benefit from us getting this
> sorted.
>
>
>
> There are many folks that here that are in AWS. Assuming you have followed
> what is in https://aws.amazon.com/peering/ (and
> https://aws.amazon.com/peering/policy/) then send me details privately
> about what/when/who and I'll reach out internally to the relevant folks.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220205/6f55b982/attachment.html>