Re: Virtual or Remote Peering

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

I guess I didn't go on to say more about the router situation, but I meant an official network presence, diverse paths 
to other POPs, etc. for the first entry. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke () gmail com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:35:28 AM 
Subject: Re: Virtual or Remote Peering 

I think you are talking about different applications of remote peering. 

If you connect to a remote IX via transport the routing decision is 
more along the lines is this packet destined to me. Having a router 
sitting in the "remote" colo is of little value. It would not help to 
keep the traffic local as there are only two paths. The router would 
just forward between the ports on either side. A common application of 
this is a "backup" IX to pick up content in the event of a failure at 
the primary IX. A wave service is just a very long cross connect in 
this regard. 

If you provide services across the IX and start bouncing things 
through remote ports (that could stay local). That is a different 
animal. 

Jay 


On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:41 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net> wrote: 
> A company you have a contractual arrangement with vs. random operators of which neither you nor the end party have 
> any relationship with. Which one's unreliable, again? 
>
> From a technical perspective: 
> router located with IX > wave to IX > switched PtP\PtMP to IX > remote peering service > transit 
>
> Fiscally, it's almost the other way around, with where transit goes being variable based on locations and volumes. 
>
>
>
>
> ----- 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
>
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
>
> From: "Måns Nilsson" <mansaxel () besserwisser org> 
> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
> Cc: nanog () nanog org 
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 12:42:21 AM 
> Subject: Re: Virtual or Remote Peering 
>
> Subject: Re: Virtual or Remote Peering Date: Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 08:02:47AM -0500 Quoting Mike Hammett (nanog () 
> ics-il net): 
>
> > > > How well does this service work? I understand it usually involves point-to-multipoint Switched Ethernet with VLANs 
> > > > and resold IX ports. Sounds like a service for ISP that would like to peer, but have relatively small volumes for 
> > > > peering purposes or lopsided volumes. 
>
> > > Its like buying regular ip-transit, but worse. 
>
> > That seems to be a rather lopsided opinion. 
>
> You get connections to other operators over an unreliable path that you 
> have no control over, and the opportunities to keep traffic local are 
> limited. Adding to that, it is all your fault since your provider does 
> not do L3 and can claim a very passive rôle in the process. 
>
> Like transit, but worse. 
>
> -- 
> Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina 
> MN-1334-RIPE SA0XLR +46 705 989668 
> YOW!! The land of the rising SONY!!