1 Riga, Latvia April 19, 2013 Uģis Bērziņš, CCIE #8972 Emeritus Chairman of The Board Santa Monica Networks Internet Exchanges: how hard can it be to build a resilient infrastructure in a small country?

IXP History in Latvia

Internet Exchanges in Latvia GIX – LATNET / LU MII, Raiņa blvd. 29 (1992/1993) Natural peering with AS2588 RIX – BKC, Pērses 2 (1997) Separate L2 switch, 100 Mbps Fiber, no Route server LIX (v1) – cooperation of 4 ISPs: Latnet, Lattelecom, Microlink, Telia Latvia (2003) Four L2 switches, 1 Gbps, no dedicated Route Server SMILE1 – Santa Monica Networks – non-ISP ownership (2005) Two L3 switches, Nx1Gbps, AS39626, Switch = Route Server LIX (v2) – cooperation of 3 ISPs: Latnet, Lattelecom, Telia Latvia (2008?) Three L3 switches, the same design as SMILE1, 10G Core SMILE2 – Santa Monica Networks ( ) Two L2 switches, AS39626, Two Route Server, Design similar to DE-CIX

From simple things To complex… and back

LIX (v1) Lessons Learned

LIX (v1) Topology GE XX Layer 2 STP BPDU Filter on edge

LIX (v1) Developments During lifetime there was increase of Core link bandwidth by using link aggregation Layer 2 loop prevention – STP did not help No Route Server(s) – any to any eBGP No single point of contact Restriction based on polytical rather than technical conditions Platform growth potential limited Frequent service stability issues with Link Aggregation and L2 Loops Issues

SMILE1 Lessons Learned

SMILE1 Topology Layer 3 No STP needed Switch = Route Server

SMILE1 Developments Targets set: High Availability and Flexibility No political restrictions Better use of line capacity Totally different approach than LIX Stability of service was superior – one unplanned downtime of a single node during major power supply disaster Use of BGP Communities Performance – Platform limited to Nx1G Routing Flexibility: eBGP Peering directly with SMILE switch SMILE switch selects best path – limited possibilties by SMILE customers to influence routing decision Issues

LIX (v2) response

LIX (v2) Topology Layer 3 No STP needed Switch = Route Server

SMILE2

SMILE2 Topology MED transparency AS Path transparency

SMILE2 Developments Targets set: Go for 10G High Availability and Flexibility No political restrictions Better use of line capacity Return to well proven DE-CIX model (L2) Route Servers, BGP Communities Customers fully control routing decision Direct peerings between major players Major players acquire small ISPs Going commercial Issues

Tools can be different

Thank you.