My guess (and it’s just this since I haven’t been inside Akamai for a couple of years now) is that they are culling the less effective AANPs (from Akamai’s perspective) in favor of redeploying the hardware to more effective locations and/or to eliminate the cost of supporting/refreshing said hardware.
I would guess that the traffic level required to justify the expense of maintaining an AANP (from Akamai’s perspective) probably depends on a great many factors not all of which would be obvious as viewed from the outside. I would guess that the density of AANPs and ISP interconnection in a given geography would be among the factors that would influence that number. I would also guess that the number would tend to rise over time. Again, just external speculation on my part. Owen > On Dec 8, 2019, at 06:39 , Rod Beck <rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote: > > Taking boxes out of a network does not sound like 'emergent behavior' or > unintended consequences. Sounds like a policy change. Perhaps they are being > redeployed for better performance or perhaps shut down to lower costs. Or may > be the cost of transit for Akamai at the margin is less than the cost of > peering with 50 billion peers. > > Disclaimer: Not picking a fight. Better things to do. > > Regards, > > Roderick. > > From: Jared Mauch <ja...@puck.nether.net> > Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 1:19 AM > To: Rod Beck <rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com> > Cc: Shawn L <sha...@up.net>; nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Elephant in the room - Akamai > > On Dec 7, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Rod Beck <rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com> wrote: > > > > Have there been any fundamental change in their network architecture that > > might explain pulling these caches? > > > Please see my email on Friday where I outlined a few of the dynamics at play. > Akamai isn’t just one thing, it’s an entire basket of products that all have > their own resulting behaviors. This is why even though you may peer with us > directly you may not see 100% of the traffic from that interconnection. > (Take SSL for example, it’s often not served via the clusters in an ISP due > to the security requirements we place on those racks, and this is something > we treat very seriously!) > > This is why I’m encouraging people to ping me off-list, because the dynamics > at play for one provider don’t match across the board. I know we have > thousands of distinct sites that each have their own attributes and > composition at play. > > I’ve been working hard to provide value to our AANP partners as well. I’ll > try to stop responding to the list at this point but don’t hesitate to > contact me here or via other means if you’re seeing something weird. I know > I resolved a problem a few days ago for someone quickly as there was a > misconfiguration left around.. We all make mistakes and can all do better. > > - jared > > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/20940 <https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/20940>
