[186547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: interconnection costs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Waites)
Tue Dec 22 14:08:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:00:54 +0000 (GMT)
To: motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu
From: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CACGuEhE1ZBWpvxm=uweriBtSMD5vrKk1u63bcB8_S5k1qiuu-w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
there is also the increasingly common pattern of "remote peering"
where you lease a circuit to an exchange point but do not establish a
presence in the facility. this can either be done with the last leg on
a dedicated cross-connect (so it looks to the exchange operator just
like any other connection except that it is to an intermediary and not
to you) or multiplexed on a single connection to the exchange operated
by a carrier that specialises in facilitating remote peering.
to the extent that this practice dramatically decouples the peering
graph from the underlying infrastructure graph it is debatable if this
is a wise or efficient strategy. on the other hand it significantly
widens the operational scope of bgp configuration knobs.
but the point is, you can do peering without a physical presence in a
location, and it is a common thing to do.
cheers,
-w
--
William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> | School of Informatics
https://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ | University of Edinburgh
https://hubs.net.uk/ | HUBS AS60241
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
