[108826] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering - Benefits?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Armstrong)
Thu Oct 30 09:22:37 2008
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:21:18 +0000
From: Adam Armstrong <lists@memetic.org>
To: Steven King <sking@kingrst.com>
In-Reply-To: <4908E31B.7000303@kingrst.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sure, but we're talking about settlement-free peering. He's only
expecting to be able to reach his peer's subnets and perhaps those of
his peer's customers. If he peers with ASx in two locations, he does
have redundant connections to ASx's tiny corner of the internet.
adam.
> But if that AS is a stub, you still can't use their up stream providers
> to get data out to the rest of the world. It still wouldn't even
> function as an "alternative path" it would only function for the subnets
> which that AS owns.
>
> Paul Stewart wrote:
>
>> Thanks - I believe the wording meant was "alternative path" versus
>> connection... in other words if an AS has issues with one or more
>> upstream providers for whatever reason, you have good chances the
>> peering connection will remain in better shape (not always granted, but
>> good odds)....
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steven King [mailto:sking@kingrst.com]
>> Sent: October 29, 2008 6:22 PM
>> To: Paul Stewart
>> Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu; nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
>>
>> It would only be a redundant connection if the AS your peering with is a
>> transit AS. The AS that I work with is a stub AS and can not function as
>> a fully redundant link.
>>
>> Just something to watch out for.
>>
>> Paul Stewart wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thanks! That's a really good one and surprised myself I missed it..;)
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________
>>> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu [mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:28 PM
>>> To: Paul Stewart
>>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>>> Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
>>>
>>>
>>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm surprised you didn't include "chance to pick up a redundant
>>> connection".
>>>
>>> * Unknown Key
>>> * 0xB4D3D7B0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>>
>>> "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."
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
