On 05/01/2012 08:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Instead, let's focus on the operational impact. Will the reduced complexity > on these networks result in improved performance? Irrelevant to performance? > Decreased performance? Maybe even whether that change in performance is an > acceptable trade for the lower CapEx/OpEx? This is relevant since business > requirements are the foundation for operational discussions. Can't buy more > 10G ports if the business doesn't support it.
While it would be easier to troubleshoot, I might decrease performance by the same or likely the same metrics. Peering via IXP/PNI pro: - more, maybe better paths - more ways to loadbalance traffic over various PNI/IXP - added redundancy cons: - needs grow to maintain sessions - maintain a contact database for the specific networks - tools needed to pinpoint issues on node, PNI / IXP, network level "Feeding" via some bigger peer networks oder classic transit pro: - single point of contact - less sessions to maintain (say 400 sessions for all bigger europe cities instead of 200 sessions per IXP) - easier view on traffic flows (depends on your tools though) cons: - if a single network breaks, it might have a bigger impact - not able to (easily) mitigate issues (ceasing announcements to a peer vs. turning down a transit session) - troubleshooting mostly outsourced to a 3rd party It depends on what one needs, and what one wants to pay. -dominik
