Re: Question on peering strategies

[Jared Mauch]

I disagree somewhat, without a view of how you are being hijacked there often 
can be no remediation. Yahoo for example provides no cloud services so you 
can't purchase a view of their routing by getting a VM. 

Jared Mauch

> On May 24, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> I'm right here at RIPE 72 now, so I saw it of course ;)
> 
> The problem is not peering itself, but more general problem of filtering
> nets, and it was told in the presentation.
> 
>> On 24.05.16 13:19, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> 
>>> On May 24, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you dig into hijacking topic more, you will see that hijacks through
>>> Tier1 is same or even more popular than through IXes.
>> 
>> You may not have a view into that you’re being hijacked and used to send
>> SPAM for example:
>> 
>> https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/45-Invisible_Hijacking.pdf
>> 
>> Their space was hijacked and announced facing Yahoo.  I’m hoping that
>> Yahoo is now feeding public route views services as a method to help
>> with detection.  Same goes for Microsoft and Google and other e-mail
>> providers.  Some sunlight here would help avoid similar localized hijacks.
>> 
>>> And if someone want to make me a transit offer for the price of DE-CIX
>>> (I do not even ask the price of DTEL-IX peering ;) ) - please, contact
>>> me off-list, I will be really happy.
>> 
>> Pricing obviously varies based on location and a few other criteria, but
>> you should be shopping if this is a major part of your business.
>> 
>> - Jared
>> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Max Tulyev]

I'm right here at RIPE 72 now, so I saw it of course ;)

The problem is not peering itself, but more general problem of filtering
nets, and it was told in the presentation.

On 24.05.16 13:19, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
>> On May 24, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>
>> If you dig into hijacking topic more, you will see that hijacks through
>> Tier1 is same or even more popular than through IXes.
> 
> You may not have a view into that you’re being hijacked and used to send
> SPAM for example:
> 
> https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/45-Invisible_Hijacking.pdf
> 
> Their space was hijacked and announced facing Yahoo.  I’m hoping that
> Yahoo is now feeding public route views services as a method to help
> with detection.  Same goes for Microsoft and Google and other e-mail
> providers.  Some sunlight here would help avoid similar localized hijacks.
> 
>> And if someone want to make me a transit offer for the price of DE-CIX
>> (I do not even ask the price of DTEL-IX peering ;) ) - please, contact
>> me off-list, I will be really happy.
> 
> Pricing obviously varies based on location and a few other criteria, but
> you should be shopping if this is a major part of your business.
> 
> - Jared
> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Jared Mauch]

> On May 24, 2016, at 6:11 AM, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> If you dig into hijacking topic more, you will see that hijacks through
> Tier1 is same or even more popular than through IXes.

You may not have a view into that you’re being hijacked and used to send
SPAM for example:

https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/45-Invisible_Hijacking.pdf

Their space was hijacked and announced facing Yahoo.  I’m hoping that
Yahoo is now feeding public route views services as a method to help
with detection.  Same goes for Microsoft and Google and other e-mail
providers.  Some sunlight here would help avoid similar localized hijacks.

> And if someone want to make me a transit offer for the price of DE-CIX
> (I do not even ask the price of DTEL-IX peering ;) ) - please, contact
> me off-list, I will be really happy.

Pricing obviously varies based on location and a few other criteria, but
you should be shopping if this is a major part of your business.

- Jared

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Max Tulyev]

If you dig into hijacking topic more, you will see that hijacks through
Tier1 is same or even more popular than through IXes.

And if someone want to make me a transit offer for the price of DE-CIX
(I do not even ask the price of DTEL-IX peering ;) ) - please, contact
me off-list, I will be really happy.

On 24.05.16 11:03, Jared Mauch wrote:
> 
>> On May 16, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
>> wrote:
>>
>> Router ports are expensive, so even if cross connects were free, you would
>> still use the public switch fabric until you reach a traffic level that
>> justifies a direct connection. The point of having a IX switch is that you
>> can connect to many others with just one single router port.
>>
> 
> 
> The cost of an IX can be quite expensive actually.  If you look at the RIPE
> presentations from this week, there are stealth routing hijacks that come from
> promiscuous peering as well as just the flat economics of connecting with a 
> 10GE
> or 100GE interface and the cost per gigabit you assign to the IX port.  These
> are flat rate ports, unlike transit that may offer you a price and commit 
> rates
> that allow you to reach everyone vs those just at the IX.
> 
> I’m hoping I don’t get in trouble for sharing this, but this collaboration 
> exists
> for europe on peering costs which are normalized in euro cents per megabit.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit#gid=0
> 
> - Jared
> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Jared Mauch]

> On May 16, 2016, at 4:29 PM, Baldur Norddahl  
> wrote:
> 
> Router ports are expensive, so even if cross connects were free, you would
> still use the public switch fabric until you reach a traffic level that
> justifies a direct connection. The point of having a IX switch is that you
> can connect to many others with just one single router port.
> 


The cost of an IX can be quite expensive actually.  If you look at the RIPE
presentations from this week, there are stealth routing hijacks that come from
promiscuous peering as well as just the flat economics of connecting with a 10GE
or 100GE interface and the cost per gigabit you assign to the IX port.  These
are flat rate ports, unlike transit that may offer you a price and commit rates
that allow you to reach everyone vs those just at the IX.

I’m hoping I don’t get in trouble for sharing this, but this collaboration 
exists
for europe on peering costs which are normalized in euro cents per megabit.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit#gid=0

- Jared

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

Typically you would use a private VLAN between you and another participant in 
order to connect to them separately from the public peering VLAN. You would do 
this instead of a PNI in a situation where you’re in a different building from 
the other participant making a direct fibre more expensive than the value it 
would bring.

A public VLAN is essentially the peering VLAN anyway, so an all participants 
VLAN would be a little pointless. Perhaps a VLAN shared between a couple of 
members *may* be useful depending on those members’ use cases, although I can’t 
think of one off the top of my head.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 23 May 2016, at 23:24, Ken Chase  wrote:
> 
> And what benefit is there to this 'public' vlan service? A shared vlan between
> all participants (with some well organized numbering/indexing scheme)?
> 
> TorIX (Toronto) is about to have an AGM here and this VLAN thing which has
> been in the air for 3 years will certainly be brought up again.
> 
> /kc
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:19:03PM +0100, Marty Strong via NANOG said:
>> The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are:
>> 
>> - Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct 
>> access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for enterprises)
>> - Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area
>> - Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different time 
>> periods
>> 
>> In a traditional peering sense it doesn???t really offer much value.
>> 
>> Just my two pence.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Marty Strong
> 
> -- 
> Ken Chase - Guelph Canada

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Ken Chase]

And what benefit is there to this 'public' vlan service? A shared vlan between
all participants (with some well organized numbering/indexing scheme)?

TorIX (Toronto) is about to have an AGM here and this VLAN thing which has
been in the air for 3 years will certainly be brought up again.

/kc


On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 07:19:03PM +0100, Marty Strong via NANOG said:
  >The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are:
  >
  >- Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct 
access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for enterprises)
  >- Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area
  >- Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different time 
periods
  >
  >In a traditional peering sense it doesn???t really offer much value.
  >
  >Just my two pence.
  >
  >Regards,
  >Marty Strong

-- 
Ken Chase - Guelph Canada

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are:

- Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct 
access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for enterprises)
- Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area
- Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different time 
periods

In a traditional peering sense it doesn’t really offer much value.

Just my two pence.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 23 May 2016, at 18:53, Reza Motamedi  wrote:
> 
> I'm glad we are having this discussion.
> 
> I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the
> terminology. What Max referred to as  "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix
> markets as "*private VLAN"*, right?
> I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the
> services that they offer [
> http://www.equinix.com/resources/data-sheets/equinix-internet-exchange/]
> Standard Equinix Internet Exchange Features
> • Public VLAN — offers access to all peering participants
> • Supports industry standard IEEE 802.1Q trunking encapsulation
> • Redundant MLPE route servers at each IX Point enabling efficient open
> peering
> • *Private VLAN* (Required: Unicast Peering VLAN enabled) — create a
> private broadcast domain over the public switched infrastructure that can
> be used for direct bi-lateral peering or to create a community of interest
> 
> My question is what is the point of having such an option for peering? I
> understand the argument that Owen and Leo have, which is to move the bigger
> portion of traffic away from the IX fabric and keep the IX for smaller
> flows. but why would a pair of networks want a private point-to-point
> connection on a shared switching fabric. Is this just because that shared
> fabric has geographical reach, as in the case of IXReach?
> 
> I also see that links provided in this discussion show Europe based
> networks that are using this peering type more often. Is this widely
> accepted that US market is totally different from Europe?
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>> As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the
>> reason you state.
>> 
>> In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it
>> does not make
>> sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic.
>> It’s much
>> less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than
>> for both of
>> us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional
>> exchange port.
>> 
>> Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of that
>> is to
>> autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other peers,
>> then it
>> makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than for
>> each of
>> us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
>>> 
>>> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
>>> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
>>> through some kind of web interface.
>>> 
>>> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
>>> interconnects than direct wires.
>>> 
>>> On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
 Dear Nanogers,
 
 I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
 Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are
>> present
 in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx
>> runs
 an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
 1) using private cross-connect
 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
 Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish
>> connections
 both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
 
 I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding
>> is
 that the colocation provider charges the customers for each
>> cross-connect
 in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not
>> be
 economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is
>> the
 primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server
>> the
 public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes
>> sense
 to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
 connection 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Reza Motamedi]

I'm glad we are having this discussion.

I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the
terminology. What Max referred to as  "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix
markets as "*private VLAN"*, right?
I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the
services that they offer [
http://www.equinix.com/resources/data-sheets/equinix-internet-exchange/]
Standard Equinix Internet Exchange Features
• Public VLAN — offers access to all peering participants
• Supports industry standard IEEE 802.1Q trunking encapsulation
• Redundant MLPE route servers at each IX Point enabling efficient open
peering
• *Private VLAN* (Required: Unicast Peering VLAN enabled) — create a
private broadcast domain over the public switched infrastructure that can
be used for direct bi-lateral peering or to create a community of interest

My question is what is the point of having such an option for peering? I
understand the argument that Owen and Leo have, which is to move the bigger
portion of traffic away from the IX fabric and keep the IX for smaller
flows. but why would a pair of networks want a private point-to-point
connection on a shared switching fabric. Is this just because that shared
fabric has geographical reach, as in the case of IXReach?

I also see that links provided in this discussion show Europe based
networks that are using this peering type more often. Is this widely
accepted that US market is totally different from Europe?


Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the
> reason you state.
>
> In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it
> does not make
> sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic.
> It’s much
> less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than
> for both of
> us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional
> exchange port.
>
> Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of that
> is to
> autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other peers,
> then it
> makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than for
> each of
> us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic.
>
> Owen
>
> > On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev  wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
> >
> > In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
> > easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
> > through some kind of web interface.
> >
> > That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> > interconnects than direct wires.
> >
> > On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> >> Dear Nanogers,
> >>
> >> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
> >> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are
> present
> >> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx
> runs
> >> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
> >> 1) using private cross-connect
> >> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
> >> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish
> connections
> >> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
> >>
> >> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding
> is
> >> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each
> cross-connect
> >> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not
> be
> >> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is
> the
> >> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server
> the
> >> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes
> sense
> >> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
> >> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
> >> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
> >>
> >> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
> >> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
> >> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS
> connection in
> >> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm
> asking
> >> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load
> balancing
> >> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
> >>
> >> Best Regards
> >> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> >> Graduate Research Fellow
> >> Oregon Network Research Group
> >> Computer and Information Science
> >> University of Oregon
> >>
>
>

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Owen DeLong]

As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the reason 
you state.

In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it does 
not make
sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic. It’s 
much
less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than for 
both of
us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional 
exchange port.

Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of that is to
autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other peers, then 
it
makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than for each 
of
us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic.

Owen

> On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
> 
> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
> through some kind of web interface.
> 
> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> interconnects than direct wires.
> 
> On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
>> Dear Nanogers,
>> 
>> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
>> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present
>> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs
>> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
>> 1) using private cross-connect
>> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
>> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
>> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
>> 
>> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is
>> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect
>> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be
>> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the
>> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the
>> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense
>> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
>> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
>> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
>> 
>> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
>> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
>> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in
>> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking
>> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing
>> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>> Graduate Research Fellow
>> Oregon Network Research Group
>> Computer and Information Science
>> University of Oregon
>> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:33:38AM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> interconnects than direct wires.

The problem is peering is not an even distribution by traffic level.

When BigCDNCo connects to BigCableCo, they need 50x100GE.  It's
actually cheaper to run the fiber between them at 10 locations for
5x100GE each than it is to run fiber from both of them to a switch,
and have the switch providing vendor engineer the switch to that
capacity.  (Hint, running to the switch is 2x the fiber, plus 
switch ports.)

On the other end of the spectrum, the guy who has 5Gbps of traffic
can buy a 10GE into the switched exchange, have lots of headroom
and connect to everyone with the same port.

The truth of the matter is there are 40 players in the big pile,
15,000 providers in the small pile, and perhaps only 100 oddballs
between the two.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpFwAqCYOOJR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question on peering strategies

[James Bensley]

>> On 22 May 2016, at 07:33, Max Tulyev  wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
>>
>> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
>> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
>> through some kind of web interface.
>>
>> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
>> interconnects than direct wires.

On 23 May 2016 at 09:59, Marty Strong via NANOG  wrote:
> This does exist, often called an elastic fabric, e.g. Megaport
>
> Regards,
> Marty Strong
> --
> CloudFlare - AS13335
> Network Engineer
> ma...@cloudflare.com
> +44 7584 906 055
> smartflare (Skype)
>
> http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335


As Marty said, it does exist. AN example from LONAP in the UK:
https://www.lonap.net/fees.php

Private VLANs between members = FREE

Another option is using a provider like IXReach (now "Console"), take
a peering to them, and then down multiple VLANs they can through you
peerings to different IXs from around the world and to other networks:
http://www.ixreach.com/

Cheers,
James.

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Jac Kloots]

Hi Max,

These do exist, at least in the NREN part of the internet.

Have a look at netherlight (www.netherlight.net) and the bigger picture GLIF 
(www.glif.is) and where you read 'lightpath' replace that with ethernet p2p.


Regards,

Jac

On Sun, 22 May 2016, Max Tulyev wrote:


Hi All,

I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?

In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
through some kind of web interface.

That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
interconnects than direct wires.

On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:

Dear Nanogers,

I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present
in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs
an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
1) using private cross-connect
2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?

I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is
that the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect
in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be
economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the
primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the
public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense
to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.

Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in
that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking
is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing
on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon






--
Jac Kloots
Network Services
SURFnet bv

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

This does exist, often called an elastic fabric, e.g. Megaport

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
CloudFlare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335

> On 22 May 2016, at 07:33, Max Tulyev  wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?
> 
> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
> through some kind of web interface.
> 
> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
> interconnects than direct wires.
> 
> On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
>> Dear Nanogers,
>> 
>> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
>> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present
>> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs
>> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
>> 1) using private cross-connect
>> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
>> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
>> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
>> 
>> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is
>> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect
>> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be
>> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the
>> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the
>> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense
>> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
>> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
>> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
>> 
>> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
>> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
>> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in
>> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking
>> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing
>> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
>> 
>> Best Regards
>> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
>> Graduate Research Fellow
>> Oregon Network Research Group
>> Computer and Information Science
>> University of Oregon
>> 
> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Max Tulyev]

Hi All,

I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any?

In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can
easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group)
through some kind of web interface.

That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private
interconnects than direct wires.

On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote:
> Dear Nanogers,
> 
> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present
> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs
> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
> 1) using private cross-connect
> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
> 
> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is
> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect
> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be
> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the
> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the
> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense
> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.
> 
> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in
> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking
> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing
> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?
> 
> Best Regards
> Reza Motamedi (R.M)
> Graduate Research Fellow
> Oregon Network Research Group
> Computer and Information Science
> University of Oregon
> 

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 16 May 2016, Reza Motamedi wrote:


Hi Nick,

Thanks for the reply.

Let me clarify another issue first, since I thought the colo's business
model is different at least in the US. So if AS-a puts its router in
Equinix, it should pay the same amount in the following two scenario (only
considering the interconnection cost and not the rent for racks and remote
hands and )?
1) AS-a only connects to the IX and establishes all inter-AS connections
through the IX.
2) AS-a connects to the IX, in addition to privately connecting to bunch of
other colo customers (these private connections can be either transit or
settlement-free peerings).
My understanding was that colos in the US charge per cross connect, so the
more you connect privately, the more you pay. This article may be old, but


Ports on the colo's IX, Equinix for example, will likely cost more than 
just a cross connect.  If you have peers with which you exchange enough 
traffic, it can make sense to remove that traffic from the IX and put it 
on PNI (cross connect) peering, leaving the IX port(s) for use primarily 
for peering with lots of "smaller peers" (in the amount of traffic 
exchanged).


Typically, if a peer is big enough to justify PNI, you won't want to 
fail-over to the IX as a backup, because doing so is likely to congest 
your or their IX links.  Of course, there are exceptions.  A PNI peer 
might not have enough ports to dedicate to PNI peering and might want to 
spread peering traffic over both PNI and IX evenly.


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 16 May 2016 at 22:06, Reza Motamedi  wrote:

> With respect to my second question, I was asking if is practical/reasonable
> to keep both the connection types to same network (say AS-b) at the same
> time, i.e., connect privately over a cross-connect and keep the public
> connection over the IX.
>


Router ports are expensive, so even if cross connects were free, you would
still use the public switch fabric until you reach a traffic level that
justifies a direct connection. The point of having a IX switch is that you
can connect to many others with just one single router port.

When you have the direct cross connect, you would not usually use the IX
switch in parallel for that AS. With the cross connect you have dedicated
bandwidth to the AS and you would want to reserve the IX switch port for
traffic to the remaining networks that you do not yet have a cross connect
to.

The cross connect is not a very good redundancy setup with regard to the IX
switch. Both usually go to the same router and share the same single point
of failure (your router is a single point of failure and the peer router is
a single point of failure). A cross connect is usual very reliable. You
would plan for your router to be down or the peer router to be down, and
have a backup path through some entirely geographic separate location.

In many cases your generic IP transit service is good enough backup. Your
direct peering is an optimization and if that is down, you go back to the
transit service.

Of course everyone are playing their own game and you might see anything
happening in the real world despite the above.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Question on peering strategies

[Reza Motamedi]

Hi Nick,

Thanks for the reply.

Let me clarify another issue first, since I thought the colo's business
model is different at least in the US. So if AS-a puts its router in
Equinix, it should pay the same amount in the following two scenario (only
considering the interconnection cost and not the rent for racks and remote
hands and )?
1) AS-a only connects to the IX and establishes all inter-AS connections
through the IX.
2) AS-a connects to the IX, in addition to privately connecting to bunch of
other colo customers (these private connections can be either transit or
settlement-free peerings).
My understanding was that colos in the US charge per cross connect, so the
more you connect privately, the more you pay. This article may be old, but
I don't think much has changed:
https://www.telegeography.com/press/press-releases/2015/02/26/colocation-cross-connect-price-disparities-remain-between-u-s-europe/index.html

With respect to my second question, I was asking if is practical/reasonable
to keep both the connection types to same network (say AS-b) at the same
time, i.e., connect privately over a cross-connect and keep the public
connection over the IX.



Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Nick Ellermann <nellerm...@broadaspect.com
> wrote:

> Reza,
> You maybe overthinking this one a bit. The economics are something to
> consider, however all public exchanges have different economics. With
> Equinix you pay pretty much a flat rate for a single 1Gbps/10Gbps link that
> includes the cost of facility cross-connect and public exchange access.  It
> is a nice one to many connection for all those various network and content
> networks your end users would appreciate direct connectivity. Depending on
> the public exchange you either have a single BGP session or a BGP session
> per network you are peering. Really after that, it's just BGP routing and
> route management. You do need to be careful about not being too overly
> dependent on a single public switch link, in some cases like at Equinix you
> may want multiple connections to redundant public exchange switches at that
> site. There is a balance you want to seek of number of paid upstream
> network transit providers you are connected to versus how many direct
> peering arrangements you have setup. It's not usually practical for a
> smaller network to have loads of BGP peers.  There are lots of good
> articles online about this fine balance and some good advice from
> experienced network operators.
>
> To your later questions. For your simple example, if AS-a and AS-b were
> both already on the public IX, and the link wasn't too overly critical then
> using the public IX switch maybe a good first step. However as that
> relationship matures, they most likely in a real world example may look to
> split the cost of the private cross-connect. If it was mutually beneficial.
> There is much more to public peering and transit than the technical
> conversation. Most of the larger networks on the public switches won't peer
> privately with anyone or only with extremely larger networks. To get a
> provider such as this to peer both privately and on the public exchange is
> not a technical issue, it's more of a business overhead and management
> issue.
> If you have a couple of quality upstream transit providers, they will be
> excellent failovers to a public switch outage.  Plan for the public switch
> to have as many problems as any upstream provider.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Nick Ellermann – CTO & VP Cloud Services
> BroadAspect
>
> E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com
> P: 703-297-4639
> F: 703-996-4443
>
> THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY
> MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you
> received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and
> its attachments from all computers.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+nellermann=broadaspect@nanog.org]
> On Behalf Of Reza Motamedi
> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:46 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Question on peering strategies
>
> Dear Nanogers,
>
> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are
> present in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know,
> Equininx runs an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
> 1) using private cross-connect
> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?
>
> I was th

RE: Question on peering strategies

[Nick Ellermann]

Reza, 
You maybe overthinking this one a bit. The economics are something to consider, 
however all public exchanges have different economics. With Equinix you pay 
pretty much a flat rate for a single 1Gbps/10Gbps link that includes the cost 
of facility cross-connect and public exchange access.  It is a nice one to many 
connection for all those various network and content networks your end users 
would appreciate direct connectivity. Depending on the public exchange you 
either have a single BGP session or a BGP session per network you are peering. 
Really after that, it's just BGP routing and route management. You do need to 
be careful about not being too overly dependent on a single public switch link, 
in some cases like at Equinix you may want multiple connections to redundant 
public exchange switches at that site. There is a balance you want to seek of 
number of paid upstream network transit providers you are connected to versus 
how many direct peering arrangements you have setup. It's not usually practical 
for a smaller network to have loads of BGP peers.  There are lots of good 
articles online about this fine balance and some good advice from experienced 
network operators. 

To your later questions. For your simple example, if AS-a and AS-b were both 
already on the public IX, and the link wasn't too overly critical then using 
the public IX switch maybe a good first step. However as that relationship 
matures, they most likely in a real world example may look to split the cost of 
the private cross-connect. If it was mutually beneficial. There is much more to 
public peering and transit than the technical conversation. Most of the larger 
networks on the public switches won't peer privately with anyone or only with 
extremely larger networks. To get a provider such as this to peer both 
privately and on the public exchange is not a technical issue, it's more of a 
business overhead and management issue. 
If you have a couple of quality upstream transit providers, they will be 
excellent failovers to a public switch outage.  Plan for the public switch to 
have as many problems as any upstream provider. 


Sincerely,
Nick Ellermann – CTO & VP Cloud Services
BroadAspect
 
E: nellerm...@broadaspect.com 
P: 703-297-4639
F: 703-996-4443
 
THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY 
MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received 
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its 
attachments from all computers.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+nellermann=broadaspect@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Reza Motamedi
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 1:46 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Question on peering strategies

Dear Nanogers,

I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present in 
a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs an IXP 
in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
1) using private cross-connect
2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections both 
through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?

I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is that 
the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect in 
addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be 
economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the 
primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the 
public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense to 
assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up connection 
though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more insight about 
which one is more reasonable to assume and do.

Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private 
cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances that 
periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in that 
colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking is how 
often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing on the two 
connection and essentially use them as primary routes?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon

Question on peering strategies

[Reza Motamedi]

Dear Nanogers,

I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices.
Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are present
in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx runs
an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct
1) using private cross-connect
2) through the public IXP's switching fabric.
Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish connections
both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect?

I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding is
that the colocation provider charges the customers for each cross-connect
in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not be
economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is the
primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server the
public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes sense
to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up
connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more
insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do.

Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private
cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances
that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS connection in
that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm asking
is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load balancing
on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes?

Best Regards
Reza Motamedi (R.M)
Graduate Research Fellow
Oregon Network Research Group
Computer and Information Science
University of Oregon