On 31 Oct 2008, at 16:56, Paul Stewart wrote:
Why does the controversy word keep coming up? You're the third
personnow to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the
third time, NO I AM NOT.
Hi,
I have no intention of fanning the fire, but I can explain the
controversy
On 31 Oct 2008, at 16:56, Paul Stewart wrote:
Why does the controversy word keep coming up? You're the third
personnow to ask if I was trying to provide controversy and for the
third time, NO I AM NOT.
Hi,
I have no intention of fanning the fire, but I can explain the
controversy
Hi there...
We've done the financial study and we've taken great lengths in netflow
analysis to do estimated traffic flows at each peering location etc.
This was factored before I posted and as I mentioned in an earlier
posting - the cost element is pretty much addressed already with our
-Original Message-
From: Tomas L. Byrnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 30, 2008 10:34 PM
To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits?
As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it
seem. The OP was asking for an easy
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30 Oct 2008, at 13:03, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis
MP wrote:
(the amsix with their many outages and connected parties that rely
primarliy on it's functionality is a prime example here)
I run
Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...
My question was meant at a much higher level - a level where costs are
equal for peering/transit and all the technical and the financial
homework has been done already now I'm the stage of one last meeting
with top level management to explain
My company will be peering with two other SPs in the area purely for
business strategic purposes. It turns out that at least one of these SPs
owns the fiber running to the first CO in our transit back to Chicago.
So it helps to be buddies with these companies.
Paul Vixie wrote:
Paul Stewart
:34 PM
To: vijay gill; Paul Stewart
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits?
As with all things, this isn't so cut and dried as everyone makes it
seem. The OP was asking for an easy answer to a complex question,
which
usually shows a lack of understanding of the issues
vijay gill writes:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and
Joe Provo wrote:
A couple to add:
- failure scoping: issues on a remote network can be better isolated
from the rest of your traffic (or completely if it is the peer).
Related to this is ability to contact the right people more quickly.
If you've got a problem with/on someone's
@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Peering - Benefits?
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
they basically are a switch which actually, because of the many
connected
parties, most of which do not have enough PAID transit to cover any
outages on it, causes more problems than they are good for.
(the amsix
HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
as for peering agreements, just implement an open peering policy
(doesn't nessesarily have to take place over an ix, also applies to pieces
of ethernet running from your network to others).
those basically are contracts that force
On 30 Oct 2008, at 13:03, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis
MP wrote:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
Those networks who *choose* connect to peers via a single fabric, in a
single location, will suffer a similar fate to those networks who
single home to
]
Sent: October 29, 2008 6:22 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
It would only be a redundant connection if the AS your peering with is a
transit AS. The AS that I work with is a stub AS and can not function as
a fully redundant link.
Just
Paul Stewart wrote:
We have multiple transit providers today and are already present on a couple
of smaller peering exchanges with an open peering policy... our experience
with them has been very positive.
As an IX operator I'm glad to hear it :-)
The redundancy perspective is that you now
HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
they basically are a switch which actually, because of the many connected
parties, most of which do not have enough PAID transit to cover any
outages on it, causes more problems than they are good
:- HRH == HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
depends on your concept of redundancy.
they basically are a switch which actually, because of the many
connected
parties, most of which do not
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:03:55PM +, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von
CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
(the amsix with their many outages and connected parties that rely
primarliy on it's functionality is a prime example here)
internet exchanges usually are some sort of hobby computer club, you
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Todd Underwood wrote:
so far there have been some good values articulated and there may be
more (reach, latency, diversity of path, diversity of capacity,
control, flexibility, options, price negotation) and some additional
costs have been mentioned (capex for
with no
loss of redundancy. Plus you get all the other things peering is good
for.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:15 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:06 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
On Oct 30, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Thanks for playing devil's advocate... I am truly trying to cover
both
sides of the discussion - technically it's what we want for sure
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and
'cheap/free' peering if
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
peering. There are some small arguments to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you
The point is if you are building out specifically to peer, the effort
is not worth it if you are not operating at scale,
^ probably
i can think of situations where there may be very low cost to build-out
to peer. but they are unusual.
and if you are operating at scale, you are not going
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:05 AM, vijay gill wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:05 AM, vijay gill wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing
reasons etc. such as:
-control over routing between networks
-security aspect (being able to filter/verify routes to some degree)
-latency/performance
I'm surprised
Thanks! That's a really good one and surprised myself I missed it..;)
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
* PGP Signed
it..;)
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:28 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
* PGP Signed by an unknown key
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart
-Original Message-
From: Steven King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 29, 2008 6:22 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
It would only be a redundant connection if the AS your peering with is a
transit AS. The AS that I work
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 29, 2008 6:22 PM
To: Paul Stewart
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
It would only be a redundant connection if the AS your peering with is a
transit AS. The AS that I work with is a stub AS and can not function
of the )transit connection(s).
Why don't you just go privatly?
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Steven King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Steven King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Peering - Benefits?
To: Paul Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 11:22 PM
It would
allows geeks to go on junkets almost as cool as droids get
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 03:28:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:17:45 EDT, Paul Stewart said:
I can think of some but looking to develop a concrete list of appealing
reasons etc. such as:
-control over routing between networks
-security aspect (being able to
35 matches
Mail list logo
