North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: US-Asia Peering
- From: William B. Norton
- Date: Mon Jan 06 12:47:03 2003
Thanks all for your responses (both public and private). Several folks
wanted to know what I found out so...
I heard from a couple companies that are operating wide area distributed
peering architectures today. They claim that the biggest issues has been
the perception among prospects that "ethernet isn't supposed to do that
(extreme long distance)." I'd love to hear more experiences both pro/con.
(I have to admit I was surprised that *transoceanic ethernet* as a shared
peering transport did not have serious issues. I would have expected that
the time delay from the time a broadcast was transmitted to the time it was
heard would have been an issue somehow, or some such interesting problems
would come up.)
Several VLAN configuration issues came up as a design consideration for
wide area peering infrastructure. For example
a) a VLAN for each peering session vs.
b) one VLAN per each customer to which others "subscribe" and peer across vs.
c) a global VLAN which nobody likes.
There are policy and design tradeoffs with each of these that touch on the
limitation of 4096 VLANs .
As for transport, MPLS framing of ethernet seems to work well. The question
of tunneling transport over existing transit connections has proven
effective to trialing but may be more expensive as the traffic volume
increases. Running circuits of dedicated access can reduce the risk of
running out of capacity on a "shared" transit or MPLS IX interconnect fabric.
As for the operator of the transport between distributed switches, Joe
Provo is correct that it need not be the IX operator. IX neutrality
generally means that the IX Operator is not aligned with any one
participant in the IX, but rather is working to the benefit of all of it IX
participants. If an IX Operator's actions unnecessarily favor or harm one
participant over another, then neutrality may an issue. Extending the
population of an IX by using a distributed architecture doesn't necessarily
clash with this neutrality principle, especially if doing so is solely for
extending peer-peer interconnection. And no, this is not a new idea; the
LINX, AMSIX, etc. have been doing this for a long time and the key seems to
be that the IX switches are under one autonomous control.