The usefulness of an elastic fabric as far as I can see it are: - Can give you a private VLAN to some *cloud* providers that provide direct access to them in some other fashion than peering (assumedly for enterprises) - Is spread across multiple buildings across a metro area - Is elastic so can be divided between different services for different time periods
In a traditional peering sense it doesn’t really offer much value. Just my two pence. Regards, Marty Strong -------------------------------------- CloudFlare - AS13335 Network Engineer [email protected] +44 7584 906 055 smartflare (Skype) http://www.peeringdb.com/view.php?asn=13335 > On 23 May 2016, at 18:53, Reza Motamedi <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm glad we are having this discussion. > > I want to clarify something, since I'm not sure I'm following the > terminology. What Max referred to as "VLAN exchange" is what Equinix > markets as "*private VLAN"*, right? > I just copy-pasted a portion of Equinix's IX brochure that covers the > services that they offer [ > http://www.equinix.com/resources/data-sheets/equinix-internet-exchange/] > Standard Equinix Internet Exchange Features > • Public VLAN — offers access to all peering participants > • Supports industry standard IEEE 802.1Q trunking encapsulation > • Redundant MLPE route servers at each IX Point enabling efficient open > peering > • *Private VLAN* (Required: Unicast Peering VLAN enabled) — create a > private broadcast domain over the public switched infrastructure that can > be used for direct bi-lateral peering or to create a community of interest > > My question is what is the point of having such an option for peering? I > understand the argument that Owen and Leo have, which is to move the bigger > portion of traffic away from the IX fabric and keep the IX for smaller > flows. but why would a pair of networks want a private point-to-point > connection on a shared switching fabric. Is this just because that shared > fabric has geographical reach, as in the case of IXReach? > > I also see that links provided in this discussion show Europe based > networks that are using this peering type more often. Is this widely > accepted that US market is totally different from Europe? > > > Best Regards > Reza Motamedi (R.M) > Graduate Research Fellow > Oregon Network Research Group > Computer and Information Science > University of Oregon > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As mentioned by others, they do exist, but usually not for exactly the >> reason you state. >> >> In most cases, peers go to PNI instead of peering via the exchange when it >> does not make >> sense to grow laterally at the exchange for significant bilateral traffic. >> It’s much >> less expensive to get a cross-connect from my router to your router than >> for both of >> us to add a cross-connect to the exchange and each pay for an additional >> exchange port. >> >> Example: If I have 12.5 gigs of traffic to the exchange and 8 gigs of that >> is to >> autonomous system X while the remaining 4.5 G goes to random other peers, >> then it >> makes much more sense for both X and I to connect directly (PNI) than for >> each of >> us to order an additional exchange port to support that traffic. >> >> Owen >> >>> On May 21, 2016, at 23:33 , Max Tulyev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I wonder why a "VLAN exchange" does not exists. Or I do not know any? >>> >>> In my understanding it should be a switch, and people connected can >>> easily order a private VLAN between each other (or to private group) >>> through some kind of web interface. >>> >>> That should be a more easy and much less expensive way for private >>> interconnects than direct wires. >>> >>> On 16.05.16 20:46, Reza Motamedi wrote: >>>> Dear Nanogers, >>>> >>>> I have a question about common/best network interconnection practices. >>>> Assume that two networks (let's refer to them as AS-a and AS-b) are >> present >>>> in a colocation facility say Equinix LA. As many of you know, Equininx >> runs >>>> an IXP in LA as well. So AS-as and AS-b can interconnct >>>> 1) using private cross-connect >>>> 2) through the public IXP's switching fabric. >>>> Is it a common/good practice for the two networks to establish >> connections >>>> both through the IXP and also using a private cross-connect? >>>> >>>> I was thinking considering the cost of cross-connects (my understanding >> is >>>> that the colocation provider charges the customers for each >> cross-connect >>>> in addition to the rent of the rack or cage or whatever), it would not >> be >>>> economically reasonable to have both. Although, if the cross-connect is >> the >>>> primary method of interconnection, and the IXP provides a router-server >> the >>>> public-peering over IXP would essentially be free. So it might makes >> sense >>>> to assume that for the private cross-connect, there exists a back-up >>>> connection though the IXP. Anyway, I guess some discussion may give more >>>> insight about which one is more reasonable to assume and do. >>>> >>>> Now my last question is that if the two connections exist (one private >>>> cross-connect and another back-up through the IXP), what are the chances >>>> that periodically launched traceroutes that pass the inter-AS >> connection in >>>> that colo see both types of connection in a week. I guess what I'm >> asking >>>> is how often back-up routes are taken? Can the networks do load >> balancing >>>> on the two connection and essentially use them as primary routes? >>>> >>>> Best Regards >>>> Reza Motamedi (R.M) >>>> Graduate Research Fellow >>>> Oregon Network Research Group >>>> Computer and Information Science >>>> University of Oregon >>>> >> >>
