[189379] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Question on peering strategies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marty Strong via NANOG)
Mon May 23 14:18:33 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CACGuEhHfc4iYGzLcK7827rvxUq7jcxAAOuWtv=3NuNxG65ADKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 19:19:03 +0100
To: Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu>
From: Marty Strong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: Marty Strong <marty@cloudflare.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are:
- Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide =
direct access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for =
enterprises)
- Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area
- Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different =
time periods
In a traditional peering sense it doesn=E2=80=99t really offer much =
value.
Just my two pence.
Regards,
Marty Strong
--------------------------------------
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
marty@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)
http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=3D13335
> On 23 May 2016, at 18:53, Reza Motamedi <motamedi@cs.uoregon.edu> =
wrote:
>=20
> I'm glad we are having this discussion.
>=20
> I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the
> terminology. What Max referred to as "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix
> markets as "*private VLAN"*, right?
> I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the
> services that they offer [
> =
http://www.equinix.com/resources/data-sheets/equinix-internet-exchange/]
> Standard Equinix Internet Exchange Features
> =E2=80=A2 Public VLAN =E2=80=94 offers access to all peering =
participants
> =E2=80=A2 Supports industry standard IEEE 802.1Q trunking =
encapsulation
> =E2=80=A2 Redundant MLPE route servers at each IX Point enabling =
efficient open
> peering
> =E2=80=A2 *Private VLAN* (Required: Unicast Peering VLAN enabled) =E2=80=
=94 create a
> private broadcast domain over the public switched infrastructure that =
can
> be used for direct bi-lateral peering or to create a community of =
interest
>=20
> My question is what is the point of having such an option for peering? =
I
> understand the argument that Owen and Leo have, which is to move the =
bigger
> portion of traffic away from the IX fabric and keep the IX for smaller
> flows. but why would a pair of networks want a private point-to-point
> connection on a shared switching fabric. Is this just because that =
shared
> fabric has geographical reach, as in the case of IXReach?
>=20
> I also see that links provided in this discussion show Europe based
> networks that are using this peering type more often. Is this widely
> accepted that US market is totally different from Europe?
>=20
>=20
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
>=20
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>=20
>> As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly =
the
>> reason you state.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Owen
>>=20
>>> 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
>>=20
>>=20
