An Introduction to the World of Commercial Peering at the National Level Dave McGaugh Network Architecture, PNWGP Quilt Peering Workshop - 10/Oct/2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Choosing a Backbone Provider Avi Freedman VP, Engineering AboveNet Communications.
Advertisements

Introduction to IP Routing Geoff Huston. Routing How do packets get from A to B in the Internet? A B Internet.
Selecting an IXP Where to peer?. THE TOP 10 IXP SELECTION CRITERIA How do network operators choose an Internet Exchange Point? 2.
Evolution 0.9: The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem Gigabit Peering Forum VII Herndon, VA September 9, 2003 William B. Norton Co-Founder & Chief.
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Why Interconnect Prediction Doesn’t Work.
Technical Aspects of Peering Session 4. Overview Peering checklist/requirements Peering step by step Peering arrangements and options Exercises.
Copyright 2007 CENIC and PNWGP TransitRail: Nationwide Commodity Peering Program February 12, 2007 Minneapolis, MN.
Fundamentals of Computer Networks ECE 478/578 Lecture #18: Policy-Based Routing Instructor: Loukas Lazos Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering University.
CS 4700 / CS 5700 Network Fundamentals Lecture 16: IXPs (The Underbelly of the Internet) Revised 3/23/2015.
1 Interdomain Routing Protocols. 2 Autonomous Systems An autonomous system (AS) is a region of the Internet that is administered by a single entity and.
The need for BGP AfNOG Workshops Philip Smith. “Keeping Local Traffic Local”
Pacific Northwest Gigapop NGN Overview Kampala, Uganda Oct. 16th - 17th 2007.
Advanced Topics of WAN Compiled from Previous ISQS 6341 Project November 2003.
The Folly of Peering Ratios? William B. Norton Co-Founder & Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc. From Debate…
Part II: Inter-domain Routing Policies. March 8, What is routing policy? ISP1 ISP4ISP3 Cust1Cust2 ISP2 traffic Connectivity DOES NOT imply reachability!
1 Finding a Needle in a Haystack: Pinpointing Significant BGP Routing Changes in an IP Network Jian Wu (University of Michigan) Z. Morley Mao (University.
Practical and Configuration issues of BGP and Policy routing Cameron Harvey Simon Fraser University.
Introduction and Overview “the grid” – a proposed distributed computing infrastructure for advanced science and engineering. Purpose: grid concept is motivated.
RIT Campus Data Network. General Network Statistics Over 23,000 wired outlets Over 14,500 active switched ethernet ports > 250 network closets > 1,000.
Computer Networking Lecture 10: Inter-Domain Routing
Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1 Exterior Gateway Protocols: EGP, BGP-4, CIDR Shivkumar Kalyanaraman Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Importance and Benefits of IXPs
Peering policies and BGP configuration
Information-Centric Networks07b-1 Week 7 / Paper 2 NIRA: A New Inter-Domain Routing Architecture –Xiaowei Yang, David Clark, Arthur W. Berger –IEEE/ACM.
Scaling IXPs Scalable Infrastructure Workshop. Objectives  To explain scaling options within the IXP  To introduce the Internet Routing Registry at.
Innovating the commodity Internet Update to CENIC 14-Mar-2007.
S T A N F O R D U N I V E R S I T Y I N F O R M A T I O N T E C H N O L O G Y S E R V I C E S C o m m u n i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s July 12,
Internet Policy Day 1 - Workshop Session No. 2 Market structure Prepared for CTO by Link Centre, Witwatersrand University, South Africa.
Chapter 4. After completion of this chapter, you should be able to: Explain “what is the Internet? And how we connect to the Internet using an ISP. Explain.
Advisor : Kuang Chiu Huang Group : Ting Wei Lin,Ting Huei Lee, Kuei Chin Fan Transit & peering Taiwan Internet Interconnection problem.
Lecture 8 Page 1 Advanced Network Security Review of Networking Basics: Internet Architecture, Routing, and Naming Advanced Network Security Peter Reiher.
Introduction to BGP.
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking BGP, Flooding, Multicast routing.
Brierley 1 Module 4 Module 4 Introduction to LAN Switching.
Routing protocols Basic Routing Routing Information Protocol (RIP) Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)
Dongkee LEE 1 BorderGuard: Detecting Cold Potatoes from Peers Nick Feamster, et al.
© Copyright 2007 Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Voice Peering Steve Heap Chief Technology Officer.
© Copyright 2007 Arbinet-thexchange, Inc. All Rights Reserved. VoIP Peering Pilot Using the Internet2 Backbone.
Peering Policies - When to Peer, When not to Peer Quilt Peering Workshop October 2006 St Louis, Missouri.
Commercial Peering Service Community Attribute Use in Internet2 CPS Caren Litvanyi lead network engineer peering team Internet2 NOC GigaPoP Geeks BOF January.
1 GIRO: Geographically Informed Inter-domain Routing Ricardo Oliveira, Mohit Lad, Beichuan Zhang, Lixia Zhang.
Lecture 4: BGP Presentations Lab information H/W update.
Policies for Peering and Internet Exchanges AFIX Technical Workshop Session 8.
Virtual Private Ad Hoc Networking Jeroen Hoebeke, Gerry Holderbeke, Ingrid Moerman, Bard Dhoedt and Piet Demeester 2006 July 15, 2009.
CS551: ISP Peering Norton01 Christos Papadopoulos (
25/07/2003BGP Table Manners 1 Interdomain Routing Politics for the Masses Dave Aaldering.
Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) W.lilakiatsakun. BGP Basics (1) BGP is the protocol which is used to make core routing decisions on the Internet It involves.
Cloud Computing Project By:Jessica, Fadiah, and Bill.
Peering Concepts and Definitions Terminology and Related Jargon.
Why SingTel Won’t Peer William B. Norton Co-Founder & Chief Technical Liaison Equinix, Inc. Asia Pacific Peering Forum Singapore, Oct. 5, 2006 Slide Set.
Internet Exchange Points: A Business & Policy Perspective AFIX Decision-makers’ Workshop Session 1 AFIX-TF,
The New Policy for Enterprise Networking Robert Bays Chief Scientist June 2002.
CCNA3 Module 4 Brierley Module 4. CCNA3 Module 4 Brierley Topics LAN congestion and its effect on network performance Advantages of LAN segmentation in.
Internet Routing Verification John “JI” Ioannidis AT&T Labs – Research Copyright © 2002 by John Ioannidis. All Rights Reserved.
Computer Network Architecture Lecture 2: Fundamental of Network.
Peering and Interconnection Economics Introduction to Internet Transit and Peering.
Inter-domain Routing Outline Border Gateway Protocol.
BGP Validation Russ White Rule11.us.
“Your application performance is only as good as your network” (4)
Copyright 2007 CENIC and PNWGP
Jian Wu (University of Michigan)
Keeping local stuff local
Copyright 2007 CENIC and PNWGP
Border Gateway Protocol
BGP supplement Abhigyan Sharma.
No Direction Home: The True cost of Routing Around Decoys
Internet2 Tech Exchange
Guide: Dr. Vishal Sharma Group 8: Pujara Chirag ( )
Internet Interconnection
Virtual LAN (VLAN).
Presentation transcript:

An Introduction to the World of Commercial Peering at the National Level Dave McGaugh Network Architecture, PNWGP Quilt Peering Workshop - 10/Oct/2006 St Louis, MO

My Background Up until 2002, worked at a large Tier-2 network service provider with a national IP backbone Peering coordination and engineering, participating at 11 exchange points around the country, with ~75 peers and ~225 peering sessions, with “selective peering policy” Nearly transit-free at high point, missing only two networks (AS1239 and AS3561)

Methods of Interconnect: Public Participants connect to a shared infrastructure Most commercial exchanges make use of a shared VLAN model with ability to obtain private VLANs Peering sessions are negotiated bilaterally No incremental costs to add peers New sessions can be quickly established

Methods for Interconnect: Private Commonly referred to as Private Network Interconnects (PNI) Physical point-to-point circuit is obtained between the peering networks  FastE though Nx10g Transit-free networks use this method exclusively for peering between themselves Typically Require certain amounts of traffic exchange with minimum interconnect sizes

Motivations Cost Savings  Direct reduction in transit fees Performance  Less intermediate networks Operational  Less intermediate NOCs Transit-free  See: “Cost Savings”

Cost Savings Exchange point participation or carrier meet point locations have fixed costs (can vary greatly) Every bit moved off of transit links equates to a cost savings to the peering network (assuming the fixed costs above are not above the per-megabit costs of transit) As with all fixed cost traffic drains, more traffic equals greater cost savings, i.e. per mbps costs decrease What happens when adding another peer does not move traffic off of transit links? I.e. the potential peer is already reachable via a settlement-free peering

Performance Intermediate networks may make poor capacity planning decisions  Direct peering networks may be able to route around known congested paths Intermediate networks may take suboptimal, highly latent paths  In some cases this may be due to an administrative decision by the intermediate

Operational Peering establishes a business and technical relationship between two networks During security anomalies (e.g. DOS attacks), dealing with intermediate NOCs can be painful at best, and impossible at worst Troubleshooting performance problems can be more expedient and yield better results when working directly with the other network

Transit-free Some networks have an eventual goal of becoming transit-free  This means they have established peering relationships with all other transit free networks and they can reach the entire global routing table though peering connections While this is likely an attractive notion for all peering networks, facts are that few are actively pursuing it in this day and age  Today, Transit-free is easier purchased than built

Non Transit-free Networks Large network service providers and large content networks are usually successful at “peering off” up to ~75% of their backbone traffic A well represented network (participating at multiple peering locations) can typically, quite easily peer off ~50% of their traffic

Peering Policies Types:  Open: Will peer with anyone, anywhere, anytime  Selective: Will peer when it makes sense to do so, either based on a published peering policy, review by an internal peering committee, or both  Closed: “No thanks, we have all the peers we need, we only publish a peering policy because the FCC makes us”

Motivations of Open Peering Any bit that can be offloaded is likely a cost savings Any direct peering is better than a more indirect path Peering network may not be in the business of trying to sell transit

Motivations of Selective Peering Additional peer should not appreciably increase support burden Should have diverse peering locations for load distribution and fault tolerance Additional peer should not erode traffic volumes with current, strategic peer(s) Peering connection should not worsen performance

Motivations for Closed Peering For transit free networks, by definition, adding additional peering networks on top of what they already have will not decrease transit costs Performance is not likely to be better than their Nx10Gbps connections with the pursuing peer’s transit provider Any peering is an unnecessary additional support burden

Examples of Selective or Closed Peering Policies Require Multiple peering locations across multiple geographic regions Require specific sized backbone between peering locations Require in/out traffic ratios (e.g. not to exceed 1.5:1, or 2:1) Require Asian and/or European presence Require consistent route announcements at all locations

Published Peering Policies at&t  Verizon Business  RCN  AboveNet  Time Warner Telecom 

Establishing Peering - Self Initiated You contact target peer either via or telephone You are evaluated per peer’s requirements (if any exist)  Often netflow data is used to estimate traffic volumes Peering type and location(s) are negotiated Peering contract and NDA are put in place (if req’d) Peering is established

Establishing Peering - Peer Initiated Potential peer contacts you via or telephone Potential peer is evaluated against your peering requirements (if you have any)  You may use netflow data to estimate traffic volumes if important Peering type and location(s) are negotiated Peering contract and NDA are put in place (if req’d) Peering is established

A Few Characteristics Peers do not typically prefix or AS path filter one another  Primarily due to scaling concerns  Instead use max-prefix (typically 2x normal received prefixes) While peers do not filter each other, they often still require valid IRR registrations Many require LSRR be enabled on peering routers, or maintain a publicly accessible looking glass Closest exit routing is used almost exclusively, and many strip MEDs at the border

A Few Words About Strategy Some are more or less ethical than others… Reroute traffic to more expensive paths for the potential peer Peer around the potential peer Find ways to increase traffic exchange between yourself and the potential peer

Comments / Questions?