North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: [nanog] Connections among ASes (fwd)

  • From: Chengchen Hu
  • Date: Thu Nov 29 21:54:54 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:cc:references:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; bh=2CFBbhIgTFIQL9paq5EdoVTbFTkNrhHVRS93LxrulpM=; b=IF6ug5q59D0/SytS+i41FvXOUOMahDpOn0zdWeqAzedVKOi8+IAhqh89NivG13VTXOBvTmtCrRSY1VD5GE94AdwfFBzHTjrR7ta/H4+Ezdm4Xi8VjujsD3W0yY8hVoQZ6VxH58PbkVLN7Ku3U/w6h4ZAP6tIVqWeuY7swFS66wY=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=received:date:from:to:cc:references:subject:message-id:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:sender; b=q90pJEqDZMczizQVRF7ISgkRoVrVBUN7dPb8yzOzjeE6dPiY4Iq2LzXPoBqRRjvMdifd306092oqbNy3gnFVAuv0f5OSEwfj0fVqnwkP/i6PCoTHToSkY9qhrtri79nhrs+NPwC+HLCqqKHbBzXfNVqI7i8eaP8eEkuTyWQzLGk=

I agree that IXPs could be connected. Let me explain the problem more clear. Suppose the following example. ISP A has a router A1 in IXP1 and a router A2 in IXP2; and ISP B has a routers B1 in IXP1 and a router B2 in IXP2. It is possible that we have DIRECT link A1A2 and B1B2 to connnect two IXPs, but I don't think there may be DIRECT link like A1B2 or A2B1. Since it should be much cheaper and easier for ISP A and ISP B to be connnected in the same IXP using links like A1B1 or A2B2. Am I right?

So in your case, all the suppliers and peers DIRECTLY connected to any one of your routers are located in the same IXP?  

From: Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET
Data: 2007-11-29 19:29:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: [nanog] Connections among ASes (fwd)

> Hi, 
> I am not sure about whether the following two conditions are true or not:
> 	1) there is no such a direct link between two routers located in two Internet eXchange Points-IXPs (even in same city) if they are from different ASes. For example, a router A belongs to AS x located in IXP1, and router B belongs to AS y located in IXP2, there is no link between A and B.
>     2) small AS will not use one router to connect to 2 different providers in differnet IXPs. It is much cheaper using one router to connect with different ASes in a same IXP. 


	Not quite sure I understand this... But, giving the old college try (Even though I didn't go
to college)...

	Just because someone is at an IX, doesn't mean they peer with EVERYONE on the IX. IX's can also be interconnected,
so even though ISP1 is at IX1 in 1 place, and ISP2 is at IX2 in place #2, they potentially COULD be interconnected but
don't HAVE to be. IX's inherently aren't interconnected, but there are some places where they are. NYIIX has 2 sites.
NYCX has 3. NYIIX and LAIX were supposed to be tied together, but not sure if it ever happened.

	As for small ISP with 1 router... When we were at the NYIIX, we had 1 router (Cisco 6509) and connected to 3
bandwidth suppliers AND ~40 peers at the NYIIX. We also had 2 routers, both were connected to each other, as well
as both to our suppliers + our Peers at the NYIIX peered at 2 addresses with us. We had redundant routers, so
never saw the need to split functionality apart.