Worldly Thoughts - Regionalizing Peering


] > 2. Even better, accept my routes into your network but only use them
] > within region... I know this isn't nearly as easy as #1, so I don't
] > expect it to happen, but it would be a significant performance benefit
] > for the local traffic your customers in the region are generating which
] > is headed towards me. Once outside the region, of course, you ignore the
] > direct routes from me and just give them to my transit provider.
] It becomes very entertaining to scale the above model (although it does
] provide an excuse to use nearly every BGP routing feature in IOS. :slight_smile:

  The model scales well, imho. Regionalize your network into
  pieces. Apply each of the pieces into 1 or more proximities to a

  Apply set filter lists onto peering sessions for appropriate

  Let me expound.

  I run I have a POP in every city w/ over 10,000

  I aggregate M number of POPs to N number of Hubs.

  (use acronym NXP to mean network exchange point.....)

  I am connected to P number of NXPs.

  I go through each of my N Hubs, and identify if he is
  or is not in Pn's region. If he is, I add NXPn's peers to the
  allow list. If he's not, I don't.

  Won't this work? Is it "too confusing"?

  Let's say I have 1 HUB in Arizona. I decide that they are in the
  region of MAE-W, PACBELL, and the NXP in Phoenix. So, I accept
  routes from everyone at any of those NXPs, and I give my routes
  for this HUB only, to everyone at the NXP. I don't tell them
  about my route to customers homed to San Mateo, because I don't
  want to carry their traffic there, only stuff that's topolgically
  'close' to them, as I feel that benefit to my customers is worth
  the peering relationship.

  I have a HUB in San Mateo. I decide that he's in the region of
  MAE-W and PACBELL and MAE-LA, but not the NXP in Phoenix. So, I
  accept routes from the folks at those NXPs, and only give the
  routes for my folks homed to my San Mateo HUB. My San Mateo
  Customers get to the folks at the NXP, and the other providers
  customers get to my customers CLOSE to the NXP in San Mateo.
  However, I don't have to backhaul them to another larger
  aggragation point, or to another NXP at which I hand off packets
  to their transit provider.

  Benefit: I gain low latency transit to most everyone.

  Drawback: It is technically challenging to create an automate
  system to regionalize and create appropriate filter lists.

Here's another scenario. I run Web o' Wonder, the most popular web site on
the net but magazine writers are complaining it is slow and unreliable. I
hire a net guru who tells me the problem is I am too big for one site.
She says I should install WWW servers at several geographically diverse
locations, preferably at or near NXP's. She explains that the servers
at my main site (all CNAMEs for will no longer serve
documents but will determine the topological closest site to the client
based on route server info and issue redirects to seamlessly and speedily
serve the client documents from the site closest to them in the topology.

Seems to me that this scenario would also benefit from a tool and database
that could determine topological "closeness" even if it doesn't need to
generate filter lists.

If this scenario were easier to implement it could reduce the load of the
major exchange points by encouraging traffic to stay closer to the network

Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 E-mail: