Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
peeringdb.com lists only SIX (in Seattle) and PAIX Seattle. Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony@lava.net
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
peeringdb.com lists only SIX (in Seattle) and PAIX Seattle.
Thanks and also thanks to the other folks that replied privately. That matches basically what I had found, but I wanted to check. Transit is also ok, I'm doing the usual minimum connections/maximum communications in case of (earthquake, volcano, tsunomi, etc) math. Is there someplace in Anchorage that buying transit or peering from one or a few ISPs is significant enough, or is it going back to Seattle anyway and the local ISPs already have done the math.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
peeringdb.com lists only SIX (in Seattle) and PAIX Seattle.
Thanks and also thanks to the other folks that replied privately. That matches basically what I had found, but I wanted to check.
Transit is also ok, I'm doing the usual minimum connections/maximum communications in case of (earthquake, volcano, tsunomi, etc) math. Is there someplace in Anchorage that buying transit or peering from one or a few ISPs is significant enough, or is it going back to Seattle anyway and the local ISPs already have done the math.
What I've seen is that in smaller markets (in my previous life), eg: Michigan, even when the providers are all in the same facility they 1) Lacked understanding of traffic-patterns to understand peering savings 2) Lacked ability to interconnect (eg: no switch on-site, no bgp/routing capability) 3) CLEC or other colo provider prohibited #2 This meant traffic would regularly be diverted to Chicago or similar for exchange between local ISPs. The one time I was able to pull off a local facility cross-connect, it was difficult to get it at a speed greater than 10megs (this was 1999 or so). With the dropping metro-ethernet/ftth type equipment that can do 1G for "cheap", perhaps a short fiber build for x-connect would help faciltiate things these days. (i should model that and post the results). - Jared
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
peeringdb.com lists only SIX (in Seattle) and PAIX Seattle.
Thanks and also thanks to the other folks that replied privately. That matches basically what I had found, but I wanted to check.
Transit is also ok, I'm doing the usual minimum connections/maximum communications in case of (earthquake, volcano, tsunomi, etc) math. Is there someplace in Anchorage that buying transit or peering from one or a few ISPs is significant enough, or is it going back to Seattle anyway and the local ISPs already have done the math.
What I've seen is that in smaller markets (in my previous life), eg: Michigan, even when the providers are all in the same facility they
1) Lacked understanding of traffic-patterns to understand peering savings 2) Lacked ability to interconnect (eg: no switch on-site, no bgp/routing capability) 3) CLEC or other colo provider prohibited #2
This meant traffic would regularly be diverted to Chicago or similar for exchange between local ISPs.
The one time I was able to pull off a local facility cross-connect, it was difficult to get it at a speed greater than 10megs (this was 1999 or so).
With the dropping metro-ethernet/ftth type equipment that can do 1G for "cheap", perhaps a short fiber build for x-connect would help faciltiate things >these days. (i should model that and post the results). - Jared
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the "Chicago Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilities with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connecting. In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies at the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table. Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the local players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR situations in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point. I would also be very interested in seeing any modeling on the subject. There was a document a couple of years ago that was pretty good talking about when to peer but if memory serves it was more focused on the larger carriers. Jay
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, "Jay Hanke" <jhanke@myclearwave.net> wrote: <snip>
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the "Chicago Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilities with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connecting. In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies at the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table.
Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the local players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR situations in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point.
Any interest by other anchor tenants in the area, such as the higher education facilities? In Madison, we have MadIX[1], an exchange point hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a presence in one of the neutral carrier hotels in Madison. That eliminates the carrier to carrier issues you run into in the smaller cities, also helps with the "Chicago Problem" which we are very familiar with here as well. [1] http://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=6636 Andrew
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, "Jay Hanke" <jhanke@myclearwave.net> wrote: <snip>
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the
"Chicago
. Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilities with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connecting. In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies at the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table.
Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the local players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR situations in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point.
Any interest by other anchor tenants in the area, such as the higher education facilities? In Madison, we have MadIX[1], an exchange point hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a presence in one of the neutral carrier hotels in Madison.
That eliminates the carrier to carrier issues you run into in the smaller cities, also helps with the "Chicago Problem" which we are very familiar with here as well.
[1] http://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=6636
Andrew
From the looks of the link it looks like there is a bit of traction at the MadIX. One of the other interested carriers has talked to the University of MN and they showed some interest in participating. The trick is getting the first couple of participants to get to critical mass. Is the MadIX using a route server or is it strictly layer2?
Thanks, Jay
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets people have a hard time understanding how connecting to a competitor benefits them. The key is to get a few solid players on board and cross your fingers that others will follow. Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Jay Hanke [mailto:jhanke@myclearwave.net] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:33 AM To: 'Andrew Hoyos'; 'Jared Mauch'; 'Sean Donelan' Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Alaska IXP? On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, "Jay Hanke" <jhanke@myclearwave.net> wrote: <snip>
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the
"Chicago
. Problem". Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilities with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connecting. In rural areas many times the two ISPs that provide services are enemies at the business level. A couple of us have started to talk about starting an exchange point. With transit being so cheap it is sometimes difficult to justify paying for the x-connects for a small piece of the routing table.
Have you considered starting your own exchange point with some of the local players? Just having the connectivity in place may help with DR situations in addition to all of the benefits of an exchange point.
Any interest by other anchor tenants in the area, such as the higher education facilities? In Madison, we have MadIX[1], an exchange point hosted by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a presence in one of the neutral carrier hotels in Madison.
That eliminates the carrier to carrier issues you run into in the smaller cities, also helps with the "Chicago Problem" which we are very familiar with here as well.
[1] http://kb.wisc.edu/ns/page.php?id=6636
Andrew
From the looks of the link it looks like there is a bit of traction at the MadIX. One of the other interested carriers has talked to the University of MN and they showed some interest in participating. The trick is getting the first couple of participants to get to critical mass. Is the MadIX using a route server or is it strictly layer2?
Thanks, Jay No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2720 - Release Date: 03/03/10 13:34:00
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:41:38 CST, Aaron Wendel said:
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets people have a hard time understanding how connecting to a competitor benefits them.
Does anybody have some numbers they're able to share? In the "two small ISPs in the boonies" scenario, *is* there enough cross traffic to make an interconnect worth it? (I'd expect that gaming/IM/email across town to a friend on The Other ISP would dominate here?) Or are both competitors too busy carrying customer traffic to the same sites elsewhere (google, youtube, amazon, etc)? Phrased differently, how big/small a cross-connect is worth the effort?
On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:41:38 CST, Aaron Wendel said:
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets people have a hard time understanding how connecting to a competitor benefits them.
Does anybody have some numbers they're able to share? In the "two small ISPs in the boonies" scenario, *is* there enough cross traffic to make an interconnect worth it? (I'd expect that gaming/IM/email across town to a friend on The Other ISP would dominate here?) Or are both competitors too busy carrying customer traffic to the same sites elsewhere (google, youtube, amazon, etc)? Phrased differently, how big/small a cross-connect is worth the effort?
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore? Obviously some of this always depends on the loop costs. Going to try to write something up that would be useful for smaller ISPs. The BGP barrier IMHO is quite high in most cases, not all the small ISPs carry their routes out to the edge in the same manner as the larger SPs. - Jared
[snip]
Does anybody have some numbers they're able to share? In the "two small ISPs in the boonies" scenario, *is* there enough cross traffic to make an interconnect worth it? (I'd expect that gaming/IM/email across town to a friend on The Other ISP would dominate here?) Or are both competitors too busy carrying customer traffic to the same sites elsewhere (google, youtube, amazon, etc)? Phrased differently, how big/small a cross-connect is worth the effort?
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore? Obviously some of this always depends on the loop costs. Going to try to write something up that would be useful for smaller ISPs. The BGP barrier IMHO is quite high in most cases, not all the small ISPs carry their routes out to the edge in the same manner as the larger SPs. - Jared In our efforts, BGP hasn't come up as often as the Cogent (low cost) issue. I think there are two aspects, one is the opportunity. If you need to build or bury it gets pretty tough to keep costs below $4/meg. The second is traffic volume, if you can set up a peering connection for $200 per month for a full GE you need to stuff 50 Mb/s over the link to break even. That may be tough unless you have an anchor institution like a college or a content network. Rural wholesale (delivered to ISP) is going at $50-60 per Mb in large parts of the US. That brings the breakeven to about 4 Mb which is much easier for the small guys. I think the dominate application driving cross connects right now is might be business VPN between the small ISPs either at L2 or L3. Also, keep in mind though the cheap Internet is only at a limited number of metro area and you still need to pay to transport that Internet back to your network. jay
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore?
Personally I'd rather pay $10 for something that works, than $4 for something that doesn't.... scott@zaphod:~$ telnet www.cogentco.com 80 Trying 2001:550:1::cc01... ^C scott@zaphod:~$ (Yes, I know, the cake and all that, but even so...) Scott.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Jay Hanke wrote:
From the looks of the link it looks like there is a bit of traction at the MadIX. One of the other interested carriers has talked to the University of MN and they showed some interest in participating. The trick is getting the first couple of participants to get to critical mass. Is the MadIX using a route server or is it strictly layer2?
Just L2 w/ PIM snooping. Dale
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
PCH doesn't know of any. If any exist, we'd very much like to hear about it. Vancouver BC may technically be closer than Seattle, but that's not a significant answer. -Bill
Hello All , On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
PCH doesn't know of any. If any exist, we'd very much like to hear about it. Vancouver BC may technically be closer than Seattle, but that's not a significant answer.
-Bill Having done a little poking around on this subject for the last 1.5 Years . I have not seen a single instance of routing NOT going to Seattle from either of the Eye's based networks (ACS/GCI) to any other network based in alaska , Except through private interconnects .
Take with grain of salt , ... Hth , JimL -- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 2010-03-03, at 18:51, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
PCH doesn't know of any. If any exist, we'd very much like to hear about it. Vancouver BC may technically be closer than Seattle, but that's not a significant answer.
Seattle is the closest practical peering point to Vancouver too, as far as I know, outside of academic/federal networks. Joe
Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-03-03, at 18:51, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange point for Alaska ISPs?
PCH doesn't know of any. If any exist, we'd very much like to hear about it. Vancouver BC may technically be closer than Seattle, but that's not a significant answer.
Seattle is the closest practical peering point to Vancouver too, as far as I know, outside of academic/federal networks.
Joe
We have the PIX in Vancouver. However, you are correct in that most players in Vancouver also peer in Seattle so the point is moot. Maybe someone can correct me on this, but I don't know of any direct connectivity between Alaska and Vancouver - whereas with Seattle there is. In terms of connectivity, Seattle sounds like your best option. -M
participants (13)
-
Aaron Wendel -
Andrew Hoyos -
Antonio Querubin -
Bill Woodcock -
Dale W. Carder -
Jared Mauch -
Jay Hanke -
Joe Abley -
Marty Anstey -
Mr. James W. Laferriere -
Scott Howard -
Sean Donelan -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu