Okay I will just throw this, in addition to what the others have said. From an
ISP point of view, assuming the neighbor is able to provision their end of the
cross-connect, you need to check the common POP cost requirements, and also
consider if the neighbor is willing to either pay for the
: Martin Hannigan <hanni...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 5:41 PM
To: craig washington
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: BGP peering question
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington
<craigwashingto...@hotmail.com<mailto:craigwashingto...@hotmail.com>> wrot
Hi,
I'm not sure if this is mentioned already but here goes,
You need to understand the difference between peering and a direct
interconnect.
with an interconnect you have to think about is the traffic enough to
"dedicate" a port for that connection on your edge. ( cost of port vs cost
if you
If you develop a well tuned process for creating BGP sessions and even a
moderate
system for monitoring not the individual sessions, but meaningful traffic
events on
your network, then, maintaining a large number of peers and a promiscuous
peering
policy is not such a daunting process.
As a
Speaking as a small ISP with 10 to 20 Gbps peak traffic. We are heavy
inbound as a pure eyeball network.
We use the route servers. We only maintain direct BGP sessions with a few
large peers. Think Google, Netflix, Akamai etc.
The reason for this is simply administrative overhead. Every BGP
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.
>
You didn't say
Is your AS registered with ARIN?2 byte or 4 byte ASN number?How many devices
are you peering with?Dual homed, multi homed?Bandwidth?Type of traffic?
There are alot more...
Regards,Cyrus Ramirez
On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 3:11:38 PM EDT, David Hofstee
wrote:
I would state that peering gives more control over the traffic you handle
(since it is not going over someone else's network). Every hop is a
possible problem to your operations, I guess.
David
On 12 July 2017 at 09:13, Wolfgang Tremmel
wrote:
>
> > On 11. Jul
* craig washington
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that
> you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with
> someone from an ISP point of view.
Routing hygiene. I expect the would-be peer to keep the number of
advertised routes that are either 1)
> On 11. Jul 2017, at 21:43, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
>>
>> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
>>
>> 3) … Beer?
>
>
> 1) do they have a pulse?
4 ) are they in PeeringDB and keep their entry up to
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> 1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
>
> 2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
>
> 3) … Beer?
Naah, way overthought. I prefer the traditional:
1) do they have a pulse?
Nick
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> > Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers
> or if you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that
> both providers know of your routes but you are not sharing
> Then you need to decide if you want to be a hop between those two peers or if
> you want them to serve you only. You can change your routing so that both
> providers know of your routes but you are not sharing routes between the two
> providers.
The definition of “peering” to most ISPs would
craig washington wrote:
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that
> you want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with
> someone from an ISP point of view.
If you're new to the game, peer with everyone you can and use route
servers aggressively. You have
Considering the wording you use, I would include this,
'Peering' is not always necessary. If you can get an upstream provider
to give you a pack of IP's and it is sufficient to just use them as a
gateway instead of setting up peering that would be preferred.
If you decide you want to have
There is one more thing to consider based on your app or content latency
criteria needs. Do you provide a service that performs better with low
latency - such as live desktop, live video/voice. You may wish to peer to
have more control and more direct path to your customer base. If you
identify
* br...@shout.net (Bryan Holloway) [Tue 11 Jul 2017, 19:28 CEST]:
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from
an inbound/outbound point of view.
That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:12 PM, craig washington <
craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you
> want to peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from
> an ISP point of view.
I assume you mean "reciprocal
Also worth looking at your telemetries to see if it makes sense from an
inbound/outbound point of view.
That is, you'll get more bang for your buck if you're eyeballs and
peering with a content provider (or vice versa), as opposed to eyeballs
<-> eyeballs or content <-> content.
On 7/11/17
1) Are they present an IX where I am present?
2) Can they configure BGP correctly?
3) … Beer?
Private interconnect requires actual thinking. Putting a procedure in around
public peering is just overhead we don’t need.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Jul 10, 2017, at 4:12 PM, craig washington
Hello,
Newbie question, what criteria do you look for when you decide that you want to
peer with someone or if you will accept peering with someone from an ISP point
of view.
Thanks.
21 matches
Mail list logo