[189376] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on peering strategies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon May 23 12:50:43 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <574152C2.4050209@netassist.ua>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:50:34 -0700
To: Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the =
reason you state.
In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when =
it does not make
sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral =
traffic. It=E2=80=99s much
less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than =
for both of
us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional =
exchange port.
Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of =
that is to
autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other =
peers, then it
makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than =
for each of
us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic.
Owen
> On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:
>=20
> Hi All,
>=20
> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
>=20
> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
> through some kind of web interface.
>=20
> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> interconnects than direct wires.
>=20
> On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
>> Dear Nanogers,
>>=20
>> I have a question about common/best network interconnection =
practices.
>> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are =
present
>> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, =
Equininx runs
>> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
>> 1) using private cross-connect
>> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
>> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish =
connections
>> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
>>=20
>> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my =
understanding is
>> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each =
cross-connect
>> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would =
not be
>> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect =
is the
>> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a =
router-server the
>> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes =
sense
>> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
>> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give =
more
>> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
>>=20
>> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one =
private
>> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the =
chances
>> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS =
connection in
>> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm =
asking
>> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load =
balancing
>> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
>>=20
>> Best Regards
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>> Graduate Research Fellow
>> Oregon Network Research Group
>> Computer and Information Science
>> University of Oregon
>>=20
