[187299] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Exchange
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Colton Conor)
Tue Jan 26 15:16:07 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20160126194611.GB26313@bamboo.slabnet.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:09:14 -0600
From: Colton Conor <colton.conor@gmail.com>
To: Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Is there a way to browse a route server at certain exchanges, and see who
is and is not on the route server?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Hugo Slabbert <hugo@slabnet.com> wrote:
> On Tue 2016-Jan-26 13:30:41 -0600, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> Google or Facebook are exactly who you would want to connect with and I'm
>> fairly sure they're on the route servers.
>>
>
> ...and have open peering policies with pretty low requirements.
>
> https://peering.google.com/about/peering_policy.html
> https://www.facebook.com/peering/
>
> Gist:
>
> Google (in NA and EU) asks for >100 mbps peak for bilateral peering, but
> are on route servers where present and are happy to dish out & pick up
> routes that way for anyone not pushing enough bits for direct sessions.
>
> Facebook wants >50 mbps peak for bilateral peering, though I don't see
> them on route servers at e.g. the SIX.
>
> --
> Hugo
>
> hugo@slabnet.com: email, xmpp/jabber
> PGP fingerprint (B178313E):
> CF18 15FA 9FE4 0CD1 2319 1D77 9AB1 0FFD B178 313E
>
> (also on Signal)
>
>
> Other than driving additional revenue by needing to buy ports to both or
>> possible regulatory concerns, I'm not sure why these companies spin up an
>> exchange for every new fad that comes along. They all just boil down to an
>> Ethernet fabric.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
