[AusNOG] Pipe/Equinix Peering Costs

[Mark Smith]

For those who don't understand the issues around peering, I suggest the following articles, both by Geoff Huston:

Interconnection, Peering and Settlements
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_2-1/peering_and_settlements.html


Interconnection, Peering and Settlements-Part II

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/ac174/ac200/about_cisco_ipj_archive_article09186a00800c8900.html



MMC has also done a few presentations on peering:

http://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-03/presentations/ausnog03-moyle-croft-peering.pdf


http://www.ausnog.net/sites/default/files/ausnog-03/presentations/ausnog03-moyle-croft-peering.pdf


>________________________________
> From: Andrew Jones <aj at jonesy.com.au>
>To: ausnog at lists.ausnog.net 
>Sent: Friday, 3 May 2013 7:18 PM
>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Pipe/Equinix Peering Costs
> 
>
>The issue is that even if they accept a customer's routes on a peering 
>link, and localpref it below everything else, a more specific route will 
>still win. So if a customer advertises a /23 to their transit provider, 
>but the same block as two /24 announcements to the IX (that their 
>transit provider also peers with), the customer could essentially 
>"steal" transit, having it come in through the comparatively cheap 
>peering link, and yet still costing their transit provider.
>
>
>On 03.05.2013 19:12, Joshua D'Alton wrote:
>> You'd think though in Australia it'd be a lot more obvious the
>> financial penalties for having said filtering. In this case TPG is
>> having to pay a lot vs a little (or being paid in the original
>> situation). Surely it'd be better for them to accept the customer
>> routes at a lower priority, it isn't like its they'd have performance
>> issues (their routers are handling 1/10th the traffic for their
>> size/revenue compared to US/EU counterparts)?
>>
>> Also, I think you mean transit-free (tier1?) included? By definition
>> transit-free wouldn't/couldn't be peering with customers?
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Cameron Daniel <cdaniel at nurve.com.au> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's not uncommon for transit networks to filter customer routes on 
>>> all peering links, whether the customer happens to be advertising the 
>>> route on the customer<->provider session at the time or not. I think 
>>> you'll find most providers do that, transit-free networks excluded.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>_______________________________________________
>AusNOG mailing list
>AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
>
>