North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: BBN Peering issues

  • From: Owen DeLong
  • Date: Fri Aug 14 12:18:30 1998

> The question above is rather interesting, and what I'd like to know is
> what are the various types of "peering" that various ISPs have arranged
> between each other?  

PEERING == Equal relation ship wher provider A announces routes to themselves
and their customers to provider B and Provider B does likewise.  There is
no announcement by either party of non-customer 3rd party routes to the other.

TRANSIT == Provider A is a customer of provider B.  Provider A announces
routes to itself and it's customers.  Provider B announces a complete routing
table and/or a default route to provider A.

These are separate and distinct entities from Exchange points... Exchanges
(places where traffic gets handed off) come in the following varieties:

PUBLIC == An exchange point where multiple providers connect with each other
across a shared media, such as ATM, FR, Ethernet, FDDI, etc.  Generally most
public exchanges are run by a third party to whom all of the ISPs connecting
have a customer relationship.

PRIVATE == A circuit or virtual circuit between two providers which does not
provide a shared media type of environment with multiple providers.  Generally,
there is no third party customer relationship, other than possibly one or both
ISPs paying a telco for a circuit.

There are many different financial arrangements that can be made around private
peering.  One of the most common ones I've seen is to bring up multiple circuits
and agree that provider A pays for one circuit while provider B pays for the
other.  No other money changes hands.

Sometimes, provider A is willing to pay for all circuits just to get better
connectivity for their customers.

I hope this clarifies the terms.


> "public" - each ISP is at a public exchange point and traffic that is
> destined to/from each provider moves across whatever hardware is provided
> at the exchange point.  This could exist at all exchange points where both
> parties have an adequate presence.  Possible additional cost if traffic
> that would come from another peer is shifted here and bandwidth to the
> exchange needs to be increased.
> "private" - A connection exists either via PTP, ATM, FR, or whatever else
> you can think of between the involved parties.  One or both parties pay
> for the link.  One time hardware outlay.  Seems expensive.  Less expensive
> than "buying" an DS3 or higher port from the provider.  Who buys from
> whom?  Who pays?  These must be NDA'd.  Can anyone cite some examples of
> what some providers *might* do to make it a fair trade when this is an
> NDA'd agreement?
> "public/private hybrid" - Existing exchange point equipment and
> connections are used.  Purchase ether/fddi cable from MFS to run between
> your equipment.  Cheap?  No telco charges, consolidate your pipes.
> So what was the Exodus/GTEI agreement like?  Did it fit neatly into one of
> these categories?  Are there other more esoteric arrangements?  Is GTEI
> basically trying to get Exodus as a "customer" in a round-about way?  That
> certainly seems like an easy way to make more cash.  "I'll talk to you,
> but only if you buy 'Peering Bundle #A13' from us at $100,000/mo. and you
> have no other options.  We are big, and this is what you need to do to
> be a peer."
> Is this an accurate assessment?  Please set me on track if I'm
> misunderstanding the concepts at work here...
> Thanks,
> Charles
> =-----------------=                                        = 
> | Charles Sprickman                       Internet Channel |
> | INCH System Administration Team         (212)243-5200    |
> | [email protected]                          [email protected]  |
> =                                         =----------------=