[187630] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PCH Peering Paper
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Feb 16 10:31:16 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <D2E89E5B.127935%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:31:07 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Feb 16, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Livingood, Jason =
<Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:
> On 2/12/16, 8:56 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Niels Bakker"
> <nanog-bounces@nanog.org on behalf of niels=3Dnanog@bakker.net> wrote:
>> * bedard.phil@gmail.com (Phil Bedard) [Sat 13 Feb 2016, 01:40 CET]:
>>> I was going to ask the same thing, since even for settlement free
>>> peering between large content providers and eyeball networks there
>>> are written agreements in place. I would have no clue on the volume
>>> percentage but it's not going to be near 99%.
>>=20
>> It's much closer to 99% than to 50%, though.
>=20
> Any reference on that? I=C2=B9m wondering who (if anyone) is formally =
measuring
> / tracking this and seeing the exact trend over time.
Niels is in a position to know what his network does. You are in a =
position to know what your network does.
My guess is Comcast requires a contract with everyone, meaning your =
peering bits are mostly (all?) contracted.
I know Akamai does not require a contract, and will only sign if the =
other side requires it. (This is not a secret.) My guess is they have a =
lot more un-contracted peering bits than Comcast.
However, let=E2=80=99s look at the basic premise here. A handful of =
networks (50? 100? 200?) on the Internet require contracts with =
everyone. And if we are being honest with each other, about 5 of those =
are legacy =E2=80=9Cbackbone=E2=80=9D networks which have not been =
purchased by a broadband network. The rest are broadband networks =
guarding their monopoly positions. (Interestingly, broadband networks =
without monopoly positions to guard do not require contracts.)
The other many 1000s of networks do not require contracts to peer.
The premise above therefore devolves to: Since most of the traffic is to =
those networks, then most of the bits flow over contracted peerings.
Perhaps =E2=80=9Cmost=E2=80=9D can be argued, but obviously a =
significant portion of all peering bits flow over contracted sessions. =
Hopefully we can all agree on that.
And let=E2=80=99s also agree there are reasons to have contracts. =
Peering can require a great deal of time, effort, and money. Peering can =
require contracts with transport providers, equipment suppliers, =
colocation facilities, etc. I=E2=80=99m not saying everyone should have =
a contract for everything. I=E2=80=99m just saying there are good and =
valid reasons for them, at least sometimes.
But saying =E2=80=9Cmost bits flow over contracts=E2=80=9D is not the =
end of the story.
First, look at the three content =E2=80=9Cnetworks=E2=80=9D with the =
most traffic - Google, Netflix, Akamai. All will peer without contracts. =
All peer at IXes. In fact, all are happy to exchange traffic without =
even an email to the other network (i.e. route-server peerings). Since =
these three networks are some of the largest (the largest?) on the =
planet, it is clear that volume alone does not create the requirement =
for a contract.
Also, let=E2=80=99s take the bottom 10K peering networks. They will not =
get peering with Comcast, DT, CT, Telstra, FT, etc. Meaning pretty much =
all their peering bits are over un-contracted sessions. The rest is =
transit.
I guess you could say the bits sent over transit will eventually hit a =
contracted peering session, since the people in the core contract their =
sessions. But does that matter to the small guys?
In summary, lots of bits flow over contracted peering sessions. But more =
sessions are not contracted. And lots of bits flow over those =
non-contracted sessions.
Going back to my original post, I was trying to show there are plenty of =
jobs for peering people who will rarely or even never sign a contract. =
Plus this is a great place to learn things like capacity planning, BGP, =
and other technologies required to do peering well. If you are good, you =
can learn the commercial underpinnings of peering.
Then if you are lucky enough to score a job with a legacy =E2=80=9Ctier =
one=E2=80=9D which still thinks it is relevant, or a monopolistic =
broadband company, you can learn contracts after the fact. :)
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
