2006.06.05 NANOG-NOTES Peering BOF notes

(This time around I opted to go to the peering BOF and take some notes.
It's the one downside to parallel tracks--wish I could be in two places at
once. ^_^;; --MNP)

2006.06.05 Peering BOF

Bill Norton introduces the Agenda;
unfortunately, my laptop took so
long to boot, I missed the Agenda

Doug Toy?, Transit Cost Survey,
data collected at NANOG 36;
he's just here to present the collected
info, not really representing anyone.

At NANOG 36, people indicated their cost
per Mb and commit level.
length of contract was usually 1-2 years.

42 data samples collected
avg $25/Mb
$95/$10 were the extremes.

Avg commit level 1440 Mbps

Other observations
as expected, cost per Mbs tends to decrease
as the commit level increases.
Tier1's are more expensive
Cost tends to vary more with Tier 1 providers
than with others.
between 0-500Mb commit level, prices are all
over; at higher commits, prices level out at
the bottom.

Question: Mbps, is that the cap, the usage,
inbound plus outbound?

Matthew Petach wrote:

Thank you Matt, these notes are almost like being there. Excellent work.

Also Ted Seely at the peering bof? Shocked there wasn't a riot.

They're getting into the peering fray, and only a
year old.
This is gigs and gigs, has potential to dwarf
current peering traffic. Current issues could be
tiny compared to the flood of potential issues when
hundreds of Gbs comes flooding towards customers.

Problem is extrapolating far into the future from rates seen at the very start. I remember some time ago numbers being thrown around of how quick imode was being adopted, which,if those rates had continued, would have meant most of the world being on imode today.

Swedish police, 100Gb of peer-to-peer traffic at
peak, AMSIX lost 10gig, LINX lost 5gigs, probably
lost about 40Gb weds/thurs last week when the swedish
police shut it down. Which site? Pirate Bay torrent

Do we have weekly and monthly stats? This looks interesting.

Comment from audience is that live events are
still going to be the challenge; HDTV is getting
gb/sec from cameras, needs to feed it out, no
chance to cache, so multicast ends up being the
only viable option for it.

Multicast is caching with zero retention time -avg.

Robert Seastrom--should you do v6 at all?
Should you be a pioneer, and make the v6 people
happy, sure, do it; if you want to make money,

I think Alain from comcast had a different take on it.

DanGolding notes that the tier1's are stuck on
a treadmill; they can't peer with you even if
they desire it, for fear of messing with their
own ratios.

I don't think sprint or 701 care too much about their own ratios any more.

Dan Golding, network neutrality on the peering

One year old company, video content, already doing
20gig/sec. This is a buttload of traffic, and they're
already getting into the peering mode; will this traffic
ultimately dwarf the rest of our traffic?

Depends on if this is a sustainable business model. During the dotcom days, lots of companies were going to dwarf the rest of our traffic, but things tend to return to mean. It gets harder to sustain 20% growth rates month over month, the further up and to the right you go.

Others are tempted to jump on.
MSOs see non-neutrality as a way to keep other's
VoIP off their networks
On the other hand, the Bells will squeeze them; the cable
companies lack peering.

I am not convinced lack of peering is such a huge impediment, esp. at transit rates going on now a days (see matt's earlier notes).

Patrick Gilmore: Tier 0, how does that work when
VZ and ATT don't make up the bulk of the internet
anymore. What about the rest of the world?

Would this statement be true for bulk of the internet in the US? How is this determination made?

Patrick Gilmore asks for non-US peering coordinators;
who would care if ATT/VZ depeered you?
Not many respond

It is possible we could have learned more if the question were posed in the following fashion

1) How many non-US peering coordinators (have I mentioned how much I dislike this term, I prefer SFI Secretaries) have current, active peering with VZ/ATT?

2) Of those that answered yes to #1, how many would care if they depeered you?

Easy not to care when you don't have SFI in the first place.

Dan Golding notes that if we had many different
ways of getting local loop to your house, it
would be less of an issue.

Incent development of alternate methods; wifi,
3G/4G/5G networks, etc.

Hah, wireless is never going to compete on a purely bandwidth perspective with fiber/copper (regardless of the chorus of people sounding off of how wifi is used to get the majority of bits on cable/dsl - true, but thats a very limited scope deployment, we are talking about replacement of cable/dsl here, not how to get from your couch to the wall-jack). The way to get wireless working is to emphasize the mobile aspect of wireless, but with youtube et al pushing huge bits, wireless as a replacement cable/dsl, not so likely.

Mikhail Abramson, with high speed cellular,
mobile is making network neutrality less of an
issue, since you do have more options. The GSM
providers are happy with the internet bandwidth
usage on mobile data, it's making them really good

Details and breakdown of revenue? Is it ringtone and SMS bandwidth, or is it gprs/hspda type bandwidth.

If we all went to a common $10 provider, we could
create a new tier0 and bypass the bellheads.

The last mile _consumers_ aren't likely to be able to go to this $10 carrier.


Nice notes - thanks.

* mpetach@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Tue 06 Jun 2006, 12:52 CEST]:

BillN: is there something else that could be given
to the customer that would satisfy their question
without revealing what
Chuck: A lot of ISPs lie about their peerings; he
runs AMSIX, people claim to have multiple gig to
the peering exchange, he knows they don't really
have that much.
Patrick: but he can look at the peering stats on
AMSIX--Chuck notes only members can.

Don't know a Chuck at AMS-IX, and he's wrong about port details being available only to existing members. Click on any name at http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/ and get the full Monty.

Patrick: customers ask how many gigs they can send
to a provider; it's available headroom, so they
ask their upstreams how much available headroom
is left. Most providers are having a lot of
trouble getting the right capacities to the
right networks. The reason many don't
answer is they don't like the answer they have
to give.

As a transit provider you're doing something if for the majority of your time you are dealing with customer complaints about packet loss.

  -- Niels.


The thepiratebay.org tracker was taken down a week ago, came back saturday but traffic still hasn't caught up.

All the above numbers are estimations, I'd be very interested in US based data.

vijay gill <vgill@vijaygill.com> writes:

Matthew Petach wrote:

Robert Seastrom--should you do v6 at all?
Should you be a pioneer, and make the v6 people
happy, sure, do it; if you want to make money,

I think Alain from comcast had a different take on it.

The specific context was "should YouTube (the presenter) do v6".

When one is speaking about intra-enterprise VOD or IPTV (ie, if you
are Comcast), the answer may be (and probably is) completely different
from the "i am a video dump for streaming joe and jane luddite's home
videos and teenagers drinking a mentos/pepsi cocktail over the public
internet" scenario.


The example wasn't fully documented in the notes (though very much
appreciated!). The idea was a content provider (say YouTube) and a
non-bell broadband provider (say Covad) would both interconnect on the
$10/meg carrier.