Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. [...]
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...]
we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories, we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy. but if there's interest, we'll find the old paperwork and shuffle it anew. -- Paul Vixie <vixie@eng.paix.net> President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...]
we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories, we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy.
One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering. For smaller ISPs like mine, knowing in advance that you won't get snubbed for peering after connecting to an exchange is the big attraction. Given the dozens of signatories on the AADS MLPA, it looks like they can be quite popular. -Ralph
On Sat May 18, 2002 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering.
I think you'll find that the MLPA at AADS just means that you can get peering with all the people who have signed up, without negotiating them all seperately. You still need to setup individual BGP sessions to each of them. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676 Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737 839516 BBC Internet Services | Email: Simon.Lockhart@bbc.co.uk Kingswood Warren,Tadworth,Surrey,UK | URL: http://support.bbc.co.uk/
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering.
For smaller ISPs like mine, knowing in advance that you won't get snubbed for peering after connecting to an exchange is the big attraction. Given the dozens of signatories on the AADS MLPA, it looks like they can be quite popular.
Strictly speaking, I don't think a route-server is required to multilaterally peer, but they certainly help. However, there are a couple of big catches, particularly on an ATM or similar switching fabric: 1) One or two sessions, one or two VCs...if they go down, you will lose all your peering at that site. 2) The possibility of blackholing traffic to a peer who you have a downed VC to, but who is still advertising their prefixes to the route server. Additionally, quality of peering does not necessarily correlate to quantity of peering. I'm not going to claim that it's a bad thing to peer with a large number of typically smaller providers, but they don't always account for a statistically signifigant portion of your traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements? --msa
traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements?
Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. AT&T Canada has a tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA. I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them. -Ralph
Ralph, Your false assumption is that any of these folks would sign a MLPA at a new or existing peering point, where such an agreement did not already exist. The major reason most of these guys are on the AADS MLPA is that they don't want to Unsign it. In other words, it's a done deal, a fact on the ground, not something they care to revise - something historic, not current. Even if there was an MLPA at PAIX, introduced tomorrow, there is vanishingly small chance that anyone would sign up. For that matter, in many ways MLPAs are counterintuitive to the very idea of peering, because there is no mechanism to ensure that both partners in any given relationship are peers, in the sense of size, network, traffic balance, etc. That is why most folks prefer BLPAs these days - it allows you to be much pickier about who you peer with, and ensure they are a proper counterpart to your network. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:29 AM To: Majdi S. Abbas Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements?
Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. AT&T Canada has a tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA. I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them.
-Ralph
At 11:28 PM 5/22/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
Your false assumption is that any of these folks would sign a MLPA at a new or existing peering point, where such an agreement did not already exist. The major reason most of these guys are on the AADS MLPA is that they don't want to Unsign it. In other words, it's a done deal, a fact on the ground, not something they care to revise - something historic, not current.
Not to mention many of the signatories will not set up peering with you even if you sign the MPLA unless you "qualify" for peering bilaterally. IOW: They break the MPLA "contract". -- TTFN, patrick
participants (6)
-
Daniel Golding -
Majdi S. Abbas -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Vixie -
Ralph Doncaster -
Simon Lockhart