<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Grotesque;
panose-1:2 11 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:MoolBoran;
panose-1:2 11 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Univers Condensed Light";
panose-1:2 11 3 6 2 2 2 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.DefaultFontHxMailStyle
{mso-style-name:"Default Font HxMail Style";
font-family:"Grotesque",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-family:"Univers Condensed Light",sans-serif'>I think everyone is missing the point. <br><br>There are lots of companies that “peer” with AWS and Azure or GCP. That’s just easier for latency and for ensuring the traffic doesn’t greatly travel over the public internet if they have a interconnect at a POP we also happen to be in. <br><br>But as a consequence of charging for egress and not for ingress, they have built their own global network on the same levels as Cogent and Level3. In fact, their network engineers would joke that if my mickey mouse company of a internal “wan” ever broke, we could conceivably just route over their network and some of our resiliency plans take that into account. <br><br> If you have kept up with the research and testing they put out in an annual report, the network observability company Thousand Eyes does an amazing job and excellent writeup regarding how each cloud provider does. <br><br>It dives deep into how out of all the cloud service providers, AWS was one of the worse in latency and congestion due to other two major cloud providers having went that “extra mile” (pun intended). <br><br>As a result, they are putting their network edge “closer” to their customer base vs Amazon who makes the packets travel to one of their datacenters or a “Mega-POP” and at that point they are on that networks faster 10GigE (or more). </span></span><span style='font-family:"Univers Condensed Light",sans-serif'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-family:"Univers Condensed Light",sans-serif'><br>https://www.thousandeyes.com/press-releases/second-annual-cloud-performance-benchmark-research<br><br>But no, there’s no reason for AWS to do a traditional peering as if they were an ISP, they aren’t. They’re more like a black hole for or a volcano of bytes that enter the internet at large. However, they will peer with anyone for a small interconnect charge. It’s all MPLS. </span></span><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif'>😊</span></span><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-family:"Univers Condensed Light",sans-serif'> <br><br>https://aws.amazon.com/peering/policy/</span></span><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><br></span><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><br><br><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:eric.kuhnke@gmail.com">Eric Kuhnke</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Saturday, February 5, 2022 12:41 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:kburke@burlingtontelecom.com">Kevin Burke</a>; <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org list</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: Amazon peering revisited</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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... </p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.</p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. </p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 at 13:26, Kevin Burke <<a href="mailto:kburke@burlingtontelecom.com">kburke@burlingtontelecom.com</a>> wrote:</p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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. </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Over the years a number of network operators have mentioned getting little response from Amazon about peering requests. </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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. </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Enjoy your weekend!</p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kevin Burke</span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>802-540-0979</p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Burlington Telecom</p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>200 Church St, Burlington, VT</p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>From:</b> NANOG <nanog-bounces+kburke=<a href="mailto:burlingtontelecom.com@nanog.org">burlingtontelecom.com@nanog.org</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Lincoln Dale<br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 3, 2022 12:20 PM<br><b>To:</b> Kelly Littlepage <<a href="mailto:kelly@onechronos.com">kelly@onechronos.com</a>><br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: Amazon peering revisited</p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width="100%" style='width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse'><tr><td width=10 style='width:7.5pt;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:none;background:#F00000;padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt;border-color:currentcolor black black;background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position-y:0%'></td><td style='border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-left:none;background:#FFD11C;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt;border-color:currentcolor;background-attachment:scroll;background-position-x:0%;background-position-y:0%'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>WARNING!! This message originated from an <strong><span style='font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>External Source</span></strong>. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.</span><o:p></o:p></p></td></tr></table><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:white'>On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 8:22 AM Kelly Littlepage via NANOG <</span><a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org">nanog@nanog.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204)'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.</p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> </p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>There are many folks that here that are in AWS. Assuming you have followed what is in <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/peering/">https://aws.amazon.com/peering/</a> (and <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/peering/policy/">https://aws.amazon.com/peering/policy/</a>) then send me details privately about what/when/who and I'll reach out internally to the relevant folks.</p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:4.8pt'> </p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=DefaultFontHxMailStyle><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p></div></body></html>