how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
476 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
1 edit | peering Regarding peering, that is a valid point. Unbalanced free peering quickly turns into a peering dispute or paid peering (see Cogent). If I'm a small Tier 2 or 3, and I get a Tier 1 10gbitps, and they saturate it, and my backbone is just 10gbitps, I need to either upgrade my backbone, or slow down that Tier 1 peer link (1 gbitps or 100mbitps should be good enough) and hope my customers won't notice. If I have a 10gbitps core, it would destabilize the network to upgrade a saturated 1gbitps peer link to 10gbitps. Also to keep the peering link balanced, I can't let my hosting/datacenter customers pump out more data than my ISP/end user customers suck down. If my customer base is 100% colo hosters, I'll never get free peering, except with low rank Tier 2s and 3s that never sink data off my network because they have so few end users.
Nowadays that every server sits on a 100mbit or 1gbit port, its either anti-DOS Apache settings, or peering links in the backbone that prevent you from maxing out your download speed while downloading something.
ATT, which still maintains 2 different backbones (SBC ILEC, ATT LD/CLEC), can easily refuse to upgrade a Youtube/Google peering link.
v21.lscache2.c.youtube.com (a youtube FLV stream server) comes up with ASN »fixedorbit.com/AS/15/AS15169.htm
Previously Youtube used LimeLight Networks before being bought by Google.
I can't give any ASNs for LimeLight or Akamai, since they use DNS localization, the DNS name resolves to an IP that is on the same ASN as your IP. | |
 IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | said by patcat88:Regarding peering, that is a valid point. Unbalanced free peering quickly turns into a peering dispute or paid peering (see Cogent). If I'm a small Tier 2 or 3, and I get a Tier 1 10gbitps, and they saturate it, and my backbone is just 10gbitps, I need to either upgrade my backbone, or slow down that Tier 1 peer link (1 gbitps or 100mbitps should be good enough) and hope my customers won't notice. If I have a 10gbitps core, it would destabilize the network to upgrade a saturated 1gbitps peer link to 10gbitps. Also to keep the peering link balanced, I can't let my hosting/datacenter customers pump out more data than my ISP/end user customers suck down. If my customer base is 100% colo hosters, I'll never get free peering, except with low rank Tier 2s and 3s that never sink data off my network because they have so few end users. Upgrading the core is the way forward, always. If you don't have capacity you shouldn't be selling it. If you are concerned by traffic balance across multiple transits use traffic engineering. If you have a single transit and saturate it and your core at the same time your capacity planning sucks. Transit providers don't 'saturate' your links, your customers do be it through the rest of the internet pulling data from them or them pulling it from th einternet.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'balance' data centres are asymmetrical in their traffic flows, consumer ISPs with any sense will be happy to peer with you, just as your traffic will largely be upstream, serving from customer servers to ISPs, so the majority of their traffic remains downstream so the imbalance is a non-issue.
If 'balance' were such an issue someone like Giganews would get nowhere, vastly asymmetrical traffic pattern, yet they are the largest customer of AmsIX.
Peering doesn't have to be private either, you guys should really work harder at peering exchanges / public peering, you've none in the top 10 for data transfer, this should be resolved. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Ignite:I'm not sure what you mean by 'balance' data centres are asymmetrical in their traffic flows, consumer ISPs with any sense will be happy to peer with you, just as your traffic will largely be upstream, serving from customer servers to ISPs, so the majority of their traffic remains downstream so the imbalance is a non-issue. Consumer ISPs don't have to peer with you, they get a nearly free connection from a Tier 1 so the Tier 1 can have monopoly power by having alot of end users to make peering connections unbalanced, and then paid. Verizon Wireless, and formerly Time Warner Cable (before Adelphia purchase), are/were exclusively Level 3. No other upstreams on their ASN.
If 'balance' were such an issue someone like Giganews would get nowhere, vastly asymmetrical traffic pattern, yet they are the largest customer of AmsIX.
Peering doesn't have to be private either, you guys should really work harder at peering exchanges / public peering, you've none in the top 10 for data transfer, this should be resolved.
Tier 1s never exchange traffic through the Internet Exchanges ASN, Tier 1s only do one on one negotiated peering. »www.ams-ix.net/connected/ All the Tier 1s are "closed", "not public", etc. Giganews (your example) would never be able to free peer with Tier 1s, anywhere. The only things Tier 1s use IXs is for is to easily sell IP transit to hosters, and remove loop costs for free/paid one on one peering links. | |
IgnitePremium,VIP
join:2004-03-18
UK | Well I guess in the US consumer ISPs don't have to peer with you, here and in Europe they do tend to have fairly extensive peering matrices. The idea of a reasonable size cable company using a single upstream provider is utterly insane.
No-one exchange traffic through exchange's ASNs - they connect directly over switching fabrics not at layer 3 so the IX's ASN isn't involved. I'm aware T1s are closed and don't publically peer, however I'm not talking about that small amount of T1s I'm talking about everyone else. Giganews I would imagine have a good reason for having 40Gbps (more now) of bandwidth at AmsIX. Even at a few dollars a Mbps/month that's a not inconsiderable amount of money.
I don't understand the tier 1 focussed mindset, one peers as much as possible via IXs, where economical using dark fibre to extend reach to IXs, and then uses tier 1s to hoover up remaining prefixes. I don't understand any ISP relying solely on transit.
Every provider I have worked for peered as widely as possible, only turning down peering where there was no business case.
Here's the peering for 2 ISPs I have worked for. I am astounded that Adelphia would rely on 1 provider.
»www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=···t=Search
»www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=···t=Search | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | This is my TWC ASN. »fixedorbit.com/AS/12/AS12271.htm
Notice Level 3 is the only upstream, other than the Adelphia ASN.
Here is that Adelphia ASN »fixedorbit.com/AS/7/AS7843.htm , it peering looks normal and diverse.
Here is Verizon Wireless, even though it looks like alot of upstreams, tracert shows that not all of the links are used, it will pick Level 3 over XO, even when XO has a route to the destination, there were less upstreams only 3 years ago (last I checked).
»fixedorbit.com/AS/6/AS6167.htm | |
|
