Re: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Mike Hammett]

Peering (yourself or a trusted third party) is essential to providing quality 
Internet service. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Zach Underwood"  
To: "AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group"  
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:27:32 AM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit 



Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat transit pipes 
and skip peering. 

This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved our 
google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI. 

Goodput up 20%. 
retransmit rates dropped in half 
Application RTT dropped in half. 

We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on two 
different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions over the 
IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX. After the 
deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs. 
image.png


-- 






Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT, UACA ) 


My website 

advance-networking.com 

-- 
AF mailing list 
AF@af.afmug.com 
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com 

-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Zach Underwood]

This is where I got started both with the BGP request and PNI request.

https://isp.google.com/iwantpeering

source of that link. https://www.peeringdb.com/net/433

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:30 AM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I'm at ~500 mbps of Google traffic and the website specifically tells me I
> have sufficient traffic.  I put in a ticket and I guess we'll see what
> happens!
>
> Did isp.google.com tell you that you were too big?
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM Zach Underwood 
> wrote:
>
>> That is the part that we tried for a long time. We shared two IXs with
>> google, and we asked google for BGP sessions over both IXs and was told
>> over and over that we were too big for IX. That left us with only two
>> options, all google over transit links or pay for cross connects between us
>> and Google. It is worth noting that google requires dual PNI in all shared
>> metros. They pay for the first cross connect and provide the IPs but the
>> 2nd one is on you.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:02 AM Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I'm seeing at isp.google.com to peer you just give them a BGP
>>> peer session.  Is that it?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29 AM Zach Underwood 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat
 transit pipes and skip peering.

 This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved
 our google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI.

 Goodput up 20%.
 retransmit rates dropped in half
 Application RTT dropped in half.

 We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on
 two different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions
 over the IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX.
 After the deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs.
  [image: image.png]


 --
 Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
 My website 
 advance-networking.com
 --
 AF mailing list
 AF@af.afmug.com
 http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
>> My website 
>> advance-networking.com
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
My website 
advance-networking.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Josh Luthman]

I'm at ~500 mbps of Google traffic and the website specifically tells me I
have sufficient traffic.  I put in a ticket and I guess we'll see what
happens!

Did isp.google.com tell you that you were too big?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM Zach Underwood 
wrote:

> That is the part that we tried for a long time. We shared two IXs with
> google, and we asked google for BGP sessions over both IXs and was told
> over and over that we were too big for IX. That left us with only two
> options, all google over transit links or pay for cross connects between us
> and Google. It is worth noting that google requires dual PNI in all shared
> metros. They pay for the first cross connect and provide the IPs but the
> 2nd one is on you.
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:02 AM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> From what I'm seeing at isp.google.com to peer you just give them a BGP
>> peer session.  Is that it?
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29 AM Zach Underwood 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat
>>> transit pipes and skip peering.
>>>
>>> This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved
>>> our google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI.
>>>
>>> Goodput up 20%.
>>> retransmit rates dropped in half
>>> Application RTT dropped in half.
>>>
>>> We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on
>>> two different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions
>>> over the IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX.
>>> After the deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs.
>>>  [image: image.png]
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
>>> My website 
>>> advance-networking.com
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
> My website 
> advance-networking.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Zach Underwood]

That is the part that we tried for a long time. We shared two IXs with
google, and we asked google for BGP sessions over both IXs and was told
over and over that we were too big for IX. That left us with only two
options, all google over transit links or pay for cross connects between us
and Google. It is worth noting that google requires dual PNI in all shared
metros. They pay for the first cross connect and provide the IPs but the
2nd one is on you.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:02 AM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> From what I'm seeing at isp.google.com to peer you just give them a BGP
> peer session.  Is that it?
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29 AM Zach Underwood 
> wrote:
>
>> Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat
>> transit pipes and skip peering.
>>
>> This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved
>> our google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI.
>>
>> Goodput up 20%.
>> retransmit rates dropped in half
>> Application RTT dropped in half.
>>
>> We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on two
>> different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions over
>> the IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX. After
>> the deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs.
>>  [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>> --
>> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
>> My website 
>> advance-networking.com
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>


-- 
Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
My website 
advance-networking.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Re: [AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Josh Luthman]

>From what I'm seeing at isp.google.com to peer you just give them a BGP
peer session.  Is that it?

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:29 AM Zach Underwood 
wrote:

> Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat
> transit pipes and skip peering.
>
> This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved our
> google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI.
>
> Goodput up 20%.
> retransmit rates dropped in half
> Application RTT dropped in half.
>
> We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on two
> different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions over
> the IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX. After
> the deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs.
>  [image: image.png]
>
>
> --
> Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
> My website 
> advance-networking.com
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

[AFMUG] Peering vs transit

[Zach Underwood]

Here is some data for the people that talk about just getting fat
transit pipes and skip peering.

This is from Google's point of view of our network. Yesterday we moved our
google traffic from transit (GTT) to PNI.

Goodput up 20%.
retransmit rates dropped in half
Application RTT dropped in half.

We started down this route since about 3 weeks google de-peered us on two
different IX RS. For a long time we have asked google for bgp sessions over
the IX and was told with 5gbps peak traffic we were too large for IX. After
the deeper we started the process to get the dual PNIs.
 [image: image.png]


-- 
Zach Underwood (RHCE,RHCSA,RHCT,UACA)
My website 
advance-networking.com
-- 
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com