Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote: Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear this was changing the routes in some meaningful way; if a customer was multihomed to us and another provider, this might affect path selection. This raises an interesting question we've dealt with many a time in our network - outside of situations mandated by governments or some such, are ISP's happy to peer with their customers (where peer = settlement-free exchanging of routes/traffic across public interconnects while customers = servicing a commercial IP Transit contract)? Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Mark Tinka mti...@globaltransit.net wrote: On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote: Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear this was changing the routes in some meaningful way; if a customer was multihomed to us and another provider, this might affect path selection. This raises an interesting question we've dealt with many a time in our network - outside of situations mandated by governments or some such, are ISP's happy to peer with their customers (where peer = settlement-free exchanging of routes/traffic across public interconnects while customers = servicing a commercial IP Transit contract)? Mark. I've been able to negotiate peering+transit relationships with providers, but only by threat of total revenue loss; ie we currently pay you $x million/year; we want your on-net routes as settlement-free routes, and will continue to pay for off-net transit traffic. Otherwise, we will be transferring all that revenue to your competitor, X This tends to be effective only for content providers, though, where the outbound traffic dominates, and you don't care if the inbound bits are coming over the pay for pipe vs the settlement free pipe. If you're an inbound-heavy shop, though, this won't really buy you much benefit. (And, if the revenue point isn't in the $x millions/year for the transit provider, they're more likely to just shrug and say too much hassle...please, go be a headache for our competitor rather than configuring a dual relationship like that--so it really only works for higher-volume relationships.) Matt
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
On 12/17/11 00:14 , Mark Tinka wrote: On Friday, December 16, 2011 05:02:33 AM Joe Malcolm wrote: Once upon a time, UUNET did the opposite by setting origin to unknown for peer routes, in an attempt to prefer customer routes over peer routes. We moved to local preference shortly thereafter as it became clear this was changing the routes in some meaningful way; if a customer was multihomed to us and another provider, this might affect path selection. This raises an interesting question we've dealt with many a time in our network - outside of situations mandated by governments or some such, are ISP's happy to peer with their customers (where peer = settlement-free exchanging of routes/traffic across public interconnects while customers = servicing a commercial IP Transit contract)? In the circumstances where I've seen this are rare... We have had transit providers that we used who also peered with us on exchange fabrics for v6 that's about it. Mark.
Re: Wireless/Free Space Enterprise ISP in Palo Alto
I haven't done wireless in downtown palo alto, only metro-e however. Given your proximity to 345 hamilton (under 1000 feet most likely) I would think att would be in a position to offer fairly high-rate dsl, On 12/16/11 10:24 , Darren Bolding wrote: Apologies if this is not the most appropriate forum for this, but I am not aware of a better list to use. I recently took over responsibility for the network connectivity at an office in downtown Palo Alto (University and Emerson). Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, the connectivity options here are not as great as I would like- currently they are using DSL, there is no cable service, and lead times for T1's and above are higher than I would like. I have already started the process of getting fiber from the city of Palo Alto between the office and Equinix/SD/PAIX/529 Bryant, which will resolve the problem. However, the city's time estimate is longer than we need, and experience implies there may be delays. So- I am investigating wireless/free space ISP's in downtown Palo Alto, and also possible options for doing a point-to-point wireless connection between our office and 529 Bryant (I am reaching out to Equinix on this). Any pointers to known good providers, or other suggestions would be very welcome- off list is fine. I am already reaching out to a telecom broker, but wanted to reach out for suggestions. To clarify- I am trying to get either a) rapidly turned up IP transit or b) rapidly turned up point-to-point (presumably wireless) between 529 Bryant/PAIX and the office (University and Emerson). Thanks very much! --D
Re: local_preference for transit traffic?
I've had similar experiences to Mr. Petach. Depending on order of operations, you can look at this from a different prospective as well -- why go with a soulless entity for your transit (or transport, collocation, ...) requirements, when you can keep it in the family and engage a peer who already understands your service model and is committed to maintaining mutual benefit? Indeed, the old adage of once a customer, never a peer could never be wronger. -a
Re: Sad IPv4 story?
In article 4ee6e7d2.8060...@bogus.com, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com writes So now we will reap the consequences and it will be at the cost of new market entrants (which I am sure will please some people) and perhaps cold hard cash for those who cannot expand their business or have to 'buy' address space. New market entrants are the customers of existing operators, so their plight and the feasibility of being a new market entrant impacts our bottom lines. On the three occasions where I've been involved in running a new market entrant they were not previously a customer of an existing operator (other than the founders having an earlier personal online account with someone or other). So it's not always a case of an entrant getting started using someone else's IP transit (and IP addressing), then bringing that in-house. -- Roland Perry
