[189759] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Traffic engineering and peering for CDNs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Mon Jun 6 13:53:20 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:53:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <82C0CE81789FE64D8F4D152631918297B18660@MSG6.westman.int>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Some rely on performance testing to the client's DNS resolver and if they'r=
e not using on-net ones, they'll be directed to use a different CDN node.=
=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Johnston" <johnstong@westmancom.com>=20
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 8:36:43 AM=20
Subject: Traffic engineering and peering for CDNs=20
Lately I have been putting in some effort to maximize our IX connections by=
trying to work with the top 5-ish list of ASNs that still send us traffic =
via a paid transit connection despite the fact that we are both present on =
the same IX(s). In one case I missed the fact that one ASN wasn't using the=
IXs route-servers, that's on me for not spotting that one.=20
Even with proper IX peering in place though it seems like some CDNs are bet=
ter at using the IX connections than others. ASN 15169 for instance does an=
excellent job sending more than 99.99% of traffic via the IX connection; t=
hank you. While others only seem to manage to send 60 - 80% of traffic via =
the IX. What I am not understanding about the respective CDN's network wher=
ein they don't send traffic to me through a consistent path? Is the content=
coming from widely different places and rather than transport it across th=
eir own network from a remote site they would rather hot-potato it out a lo=
cal transit connection? Are their transit costs so low that they don't care=
about using an IX connection over transit unlike a small operator like me?=
Is this just a non-obvious issue wherein they maybe just can't originate e=
nough of the traffic near the IX and therefore don't make use of the IX con=
nection, again a hot-potato phenomenon?=20
Secondly can someone explain to me why some CDNs want a gigabit or two of t=
raffic to be exchanged between our respective networks before they would pe=
er with me via a public IX? I totally get those kinds of thresholds before =
engaging in a private interconnect but I don't understand the reluctance wi=
th regard to a public IX, that they are already established at. Is it again=
just a simple case of bandwidth economics that operate at a different scal=
e than I can comprehend?=20
I'm hoping the community can shed some light on this for me as I'm trying t=
o avoid grilling the operators that are working with me as I don't expect t=
hose front line individuals to necessarily have a full view of the factors =
at play.=20
Thanks,=20
Graham Johnston=20
Network Planner=20
Westman Communications Group=20
204.717.2829=20
johnstong@westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com>=20
P think green; don't print this email.=20
