North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Local Peering Points
> > > I've been having an offline debate and wanted to take a quick > lithmus test...Mostly aimed at the folks who don't currently > peer at any of the 'nationally recognized peering points', but I'll > take answers from anyone...Ya'll are always so short on opinions. :-} *smile* And we're always so fast to leap in with them, even when we're still 200 messages behind, and not likely to catch up before responding. > If someone presented you with the following options: > > 1) $X connect to a local peering point and peer with other > local/regional ISPs (MLPA) You retain current transit. > 2) $X+$Y connect to a local peering point and peer with other > local/regional ISPs plus the host (a decent sized national > carrier) You retain current transit. > 3) $X+$Y+$Z Purchase transit from the host, not including access > to the local peering points > > Would purchasing #3 prevent or discourage you from purchasing #1 and > would purchasing #1 or #2 prevent or discourage you from purchasing > #3? How do folks feel about the concept of local peering points? Much of this depends on the relative orders of magnitude for X, Y, and Z. If X is relatively small compared to Z, I don't think many people would even have to think once before purchasing both #3 and #1, so long as there was no contractual limitation on what other peering could be obtained when purchasing option #3. Assuming a reasonable transit carrier already, #2 would definitely preclude #3. There's greater benefit (IF you already have a good transit carrier) in the redundancy afforded by hearing routes from multiple sources, and having multiple outbound announcements. If a peering session drops in #2, only that peer loses your announcements. Case #3, peer drops, you lose everything at that location. :( Local peering points are best used for just that. Exchange traffic with others in your area. I don't think LOCAL exchange points should be used as places to try to offload traffic destined for far-reaching endpoints multiple hops away. That's what transit carriers are for, and I think transit carriage of traffic out of local regions is only going to increase, as the major players stop seeing value at the local exchange points. It's a great market for a company that wants to stop selling to end-users, and who simply wants to provide transit pipes to regional and local exchange points. Of course, it's past 1am, and I'm just babbling, so feel free to totally ignore this. :) > Comments, public or private, are, of course, welcome. > bob iii (not speaking for anyone but myself, & certainly not my employer...) > Matt Petach, barely able to speak for himself, let alone an employer. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|