[AusNOG] Pipe/Equinix Peering Costs

[McDonald Richards]

Also remember the definition of settlement free peering includes the phrase "mutually beneficial"....



On 03/05/2013, at 7:38 PM, "Mark Smith" <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog