[AusNOG] Why is peering in Australia so hard?

Joshua D'Alton joshua at railgun.com.au
Sun Aug 4 17:15:08 EST 2013 

This and Wolfgangs next reply is my point. Clearly the people in the know
about what it actually costs are right, but most people aren't in the know.
There is a large gap between the sales, the technical, and the business
decision makers, perceptibly too large at the moment.

I'm probably on the edge of the know, but even I have difficulty putting
some of the pieces of the puzzle together, having said that I know what is
an isn't a good deal, but I wouldn't know really how to GET the good deal I
know exists out there. A certain network supplier in AU provided me with a
quote for a $45k switch where you're turning around and saying it can be
had for $3k.. give or take.


On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Peter Betyounan <
peter at serversaustralia.com.au> wrote:

> Josh,
>
> Your typical 10gbe port is relatively cheap these days and a 10gbe SFP+ is
> like $100 just need to know where to shop :) You can even buy 24 port 10gbe
> juniper EX2500 for $3k second hand and they come with Dual PSU as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards, *
> Peter Betyounan*
> Chief Technical Officer
>
> [image: Description: Description: Description: Description: Description:
> serversaust-logo-vector.jpg]
>
> Phone:                  1300 788 862
> Network Ops:          (02) 8115 8850
> Web:                      *http://www.serversaustralia.com.au*
> Office Address:    2/2 Teamster Close, Tuggerah NSW 2259
> Notice: This message may contain private and confidential information
> intended only for the recipients. If you have received this message in
> error please delete immediately and notify the sender, as any distribution
> or reproduction of this message is prohibited. The views & opinions
> expressed in this e-mail are NOT necessarily those of Servers Australia
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Joshua D'Alton <joshua at railgun.com.au>wrote:
>
>> True, but those small ISPs are single homed and will have quite simple
>> setups. Indeed a cross connect or worst case some fiber interconnect might
>> be relatively cheap, but peering requires talking BGP and that for a start
>> requires more expensive gear (lol @ megaport $500/month for 10G, cheap on
>> OPEX sure but a single fiber module will cost you a years worth of peering,
>> and a router another 5-20yrs so the CAPEX is the issue there), and then the
>> engineering side. I know a few small ISPs that run a bunch of l2/l3
>> services at a fairly reasonable scale, but with a grand total of 2
>> networking guys max per ISP, and across all of them only a couple of CCNAs
>> or similar at best.
>>
>> Anyway, playing devils advocate here, personally if I was an ISP beyond
>> ICT/SOHO levels (so say 10k customers), I'd definitely have a national
>> network and probably be selling more than just DSL tail products, but
>> onselling interconnects to other similar/smaller ISPs who don't want to do
>> it themselves, and peering would play a massive role in that. I think
>> Megaport has mostly the right idea, especially with the free for 6 months
>> part, but to reach the ISPs with only a handleful of staff and maybe only 1
>> who knows what BGP even is... well that is more of an education and sales
>> thing than aforementioned technical/cost reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Cameron Daniel <cdaniel at nurve.com.au>wrote:
>>
>>> For most service provider networks, peering in at least one location is
>>> very achievable. The small networks you mention are generally set up in
>>> well-connected locations so they can pick up their DSL tails/transit
>>> cheaply. These locations typically have at least one IX present.
>>>
>>> The cost of peering, assuming you have the ports available and meet the
>>> bandwidth requirements to make it commercially viable (ie. very little),
>>> comes down to operational expense. It's an extra "thing" that needs
>>> monitoring and some occasional attention from the engineering team/person.
>>>
>>> Assuming the cost of peering is less than the cost of a transit port,
>>> it's almost always a good idea. The barrier for entry to an IX isn't as
>>> high as some people seem to think.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2013-08-04 4:16 pm, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
>>>
>>>> And just adding to that, the scale you have in EU/US is 10-100x what
>>>> you have here. So we might have... well hundreds of ISPs and a few
>>>> thousand AS#, but where the 100th largest in Europe will have multiple
>>>> PoPs with carrier grade equipment and at least 10 network engineers
>>>> and doing 50Gbit+ traffic, the 100th network here in Australia is 1
>>>> PoP, 2 engineers at best and doing a few hundred Mbit at best, so its
>>>> not really cost effective to consider peering, or even practical. The
>>>> vast majority of AU networks (ASn or not) are single homed to begin
>>>> with, let alone thinking about peering.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Nagele
>>>> <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.**com.au<wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Hi Mark,
>>>>>
>>>>> The only difference that I can agree to is the distance between
>>>>> major cities. All the rest is the same in every market around the
>>>>> world. In my mind the vast distances between major cities should
>>>>> make the case for peering even stronger. Also as far as distance and
>>>>> availability of IXes goes Australia is not that much different from
>>>>> the US. Most peering in the US is carried out at the West and East
>>>>> coast - same as in Australia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did receive a reply off-list that pointed out what I believe may
>>>>> be the real reason for the difference in peering culture. In
>>>>> Australia the Internet did not start with small ISPs all over the
>>>>> place - it started with the Incumbent. That makes for a very
>>>>> different dynamic around market control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Wolfgang
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/4/13 9:40 AM, "Mark ZZZ Smith" <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it could be a symptom of a few differences between Australia
>>>>> and other regions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Australia has a small number of large cities, spread apart by 100s
>>>>> of Kms. As a consequence, there are only a small number of IXes in
>>>>> each city, and the network effect (the more something is used, the
>>>>> more valuable it becomes), keeps that number of IXes small. If
>>>>> you're going to connect to an interstate IX, you need to be large
>>>>> enough to afford that sort of infrastructure (e.g, be able to afford
>>>>> to pay for a reasonable bandwidth link that goes 100s of Kms), and
>>>>> you're going to go to the most popular IX(es) to gain the best value
>>>>> from peering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you connect to an IX, multilateral peering with a couple of
>>>>> the IX's route servers provides more value than bilaterally peering
>>>>> in most cases, because you avoid the administrative overhead of all
>>>>> those bilateral peering setups.
>>>>>
>>>>> To be worth doing, bilateral peering would need to either provide a
>>>>> peering with somebody who won't multilateral peer at an IX, or
>>>>> peering that provides more useful value than what the existing
>>>>> multilateral peering provides.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mark.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>> FROM: Shaun McGuane <shaun at rackcentral.com.au>
>>>>> TO: Tom Paseka <tom at cloudflare.com>; Wolfgang Nagele
>>>>> <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.**com.au<wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>
>>>>> >
>>>>> CC: "Ausnog at ausnog.net" <Ausnog at ausnog.net>
>>>>> SENT: Sunday, 4 August 2013 3:16 AM
>>>>> SUBJECT: Re: [AusNOG] Why is peering in Australia so hard?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just wanted to chime in here … We are peering with Wolfgang and
>>>>> set it up last week.
>>>>> We are all for peering .. and if anyone wants to reach out and peer
>>>>> with us we have gear/pop in the following locations.
>>>>>
>>>>> 530 Collins St (MDF / & MDC Level 15 )
>>>>> 525 Collins St (MDF Rialto Towers)
>>>>> NextDC M1
>>>>> Primus DC Melbourne
>>>>> Vocus Doody St Sydney
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Shaun McGuane
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FROM: AusNOG [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.**ausnog.net<ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net>]
>>>>> ON BEHALF OF
>>>>> Tom Paseka
>>>>> SENT: Sunday, 4 August 2013 3:01 AM
>>>>> TO: Wolfgang Nagele
>>>>> CC: Ausnog at ausnog.net
>>>>> SUBJECT: Re: [AusNOG] Why is peering in Australia so hard?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolfgang,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Australia isn't opposed to peering any more or less so than Europe.
>>>>> Difference is many operators wont set up direct sessions over the
>>>>> fabric, instead relying on peering with the Route Server(s) to
>>>>> exchange routes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Wolfgang Nagele
>>>>> <wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.**com.au<wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Coming from Europe I have to say that I am still surprised about the
>>>>> reluctance in Australia to peer with each other. Leaving the large
>>>>> players and their various (mainly) political motives aside, why the
>>>>> reluctance among the small providers here?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it into perspective, we've just recently rolled out a
>>>>> substantial global Anycast deployment and while we are struggling to
>>>>> get decent numbers of peers at various IXes here we've established
>>>>> many in both Europe and the US.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody can shed some light on this issue for me?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And for those that actually just would like to peer - our details
>>>>> are here: http://as58620.peeringdb.com [1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> Wolfgang Nagele
>>>>>
>>>>> IT Manager
>>>>>
>>>>> AusRegistry Pty Ltd
>>>>>
>>>>> Level 8, 10 Queens Road
>>>>>
>>>>> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3004
>>>>>
>>>>> Phone +61 3 9866 3710
>>>>>
>>>>> Email: wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.**com.au<wolfgang.nagele at ausregistry.com.au>
>>>>>
>>>>> Web: www.ausregistry.com.au [2]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The information contained in this communication is intended for the
>>>>> named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain
>>>>> legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not
>>>>> an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any
>>>>> action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in
>>>>> error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us
>>>>> immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/**mailman/listinfo/ausnog<http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>[3]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Message protected by RackCentral: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and
>>>>> content filtering. http://www.rackcentral.com.au [4]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/**mailman/listinfo/ausnog<http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>[3]
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>  AusNOG mailing list
>>>>  AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>>  http://lists.ausnog.net/**mailman/listinfo/ausnog<http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>[3]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Links:
>>>> ------
>>>> [1] http://as58620.peeringdb.com/
>>>> [2] http://www.ausregistry.com.au/
>>>> [3] http://lists.ausnog.net/**mailman/listinfo/ausnog<http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>
>>>> [4] http://www.rackcentral.com.au
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> AusNOG mailing list
>>>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>>>> http://lists.ausnog.net/**mailman/listinfo/ausnog<http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130804/63a90984/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130804/63a90984/attachment.jpe>

More information about the AusNOG mailing list