AbstractTier 1 vs. Tier 2 : MotivationsDirect ApproachTransit with Peering MigrationEnd Run TacticDual Transit/PeeringPurchase Transit Only From Large Tier 2 ISPsPaid PeeringPartial Transit (Regional)ChickenTraffic Manipulation: Increase Peer Transit LoadBluff (Traffic Load Futures)Wide Scale Open Peering PolicyMassive Colo BuildAggressive Traffic BuildupFriendship-based PeeringSpam Peering RequestsHoney ApproachPurchase Legacy Peering17. Bait and Switch TacticFalse Peering Outage TacticWhat Doesn’t WorkSummaryAcknowledgementsAbout the AuthorAppendix A – Open Peering ExampleDRAFT The Art of Peering – The Peering Playbook v0.6 W. B. Norton 1 Comments to the Author Welcome <[email protected]> The Art of Peering: The Peering Playbook <[email protected]> Abstract Internet Service Provider (ISP) Peering Coordinators were interviewed over the past few years for the “Interconnection Strategies for ISPs”, “Internet Service Providers and Peering”, and “A Business Case for Peering” Internet Operations Research papers. In these previous works, we documented the commonly used terminology (Peering, Transit, Transport, etc.), the motivations, the financial justifications and the process of peering. In this paper we build upon this foundation of peering knowledge and present tactics that Peering Coordinators have used to obtain peering where they otherwise might not have been able to obtain peering. We have identified 17 specific maneuvers that vary from mundane to the clever, from merely deceptive to manipulative. In sum, these tactics represent the “Peering Playbook”, the current “Art” of Peering. Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 : Motivations To understand the tactics employed by ISPs it is important to first understand the motivations of two major classifications of ISPs in the Internet hierarchy. For the Tier 1 ISPs, there are eight1 interconnection regions in the United States that make up what is referred to as “The Default Free Zone”. In each of these eight interconnection regions, the Tier 1 ISPs2 connect their networks together in private3 peering relationships. The motivation for peering is not to reduce transit costs since, by definition, Tier 1 ISPs don’t pay for transit. Rather, they seek to minimize their interconnection costs while providing sufficient interconnection bandwidth to support their customer base and their growth. For this reason, the only peering the Tier 1 ISPs need is with each other, 1 NYC Area, Washington DC Area, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Seattle, San Jose (Bay Area), and Los Angeles. 2 From “Internet Service Providers and Peering”, a Tier 1 ISP is defined as an ISP that has access to the global routing table but does not purchase transit from anyone. In other words, the routing table is populated solely from Peering Relationships. 3 Private Peering is defined as dedicated point-to-point interconnections via fiber, point-to-point circuits, or other non-switched method. and Tier 1 peering policies tend to reflect this. QLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCQLASGWCFigure 1 - Eight Interconnection Regions for Tier 1 ISPs The primary motivations for Tier 2 ISP Peering is to reduce transit fees4. Any Internet traffic sent over peering links is traffic that does not go over the relatively expensive5 transit links. For like-minded Tier-2 ISPs there is a clear financial win here to peer with each other. The figure below shows the motivations of Tier 1 and Tier 2 peering players. Thicker arrowed lines reflect greater motivation to peer with the target ISP. LargestTier-1OtherTier-1LargestTier-2ContentOtherOtherTier-2Other SimilarOther SimilarOther SimilarOther SimilarContent-HeavyTraffic MostlyOutboundEyeball-HeavyTraffic MostlyInboundLargestTier-1OtherTier-1LargestTier-2ContentOtherOtherTier-2Other SimilarOther SimilarOther SimilarOther SimilarContent-HeavyTraffic MostlyOutboundEyeball-HeavyTraffic MostlyInbound Figure 2 - Peering Motivations: Who wants to peer with whom6? 4 A little bit of an exaggeration here – there are some ISPs that peer primarily for performance improvement. The “Internet Service Providers and Peering” papers highlights these other motivations. 5 Expensive is an overloaded term here. Paul Nguyen (Google) points to the rapidly declining transit prices and relatively static exchange point prices as causing a shift in the motivation for peering from cost savings to performance improvements. 6 Slide from Gigabit Peering Forum PresentationDRAFT The Art of Peering – The Peering Playbook v0.6 W. B. Norton 2 Comments to the Author Welcome <[email protected]> Since the Tier 1 ISPs collectively represent 85% of the routing table7, they represent the ideal peering candidates for the large Tier 2 ISPs. For a variety of reasons highlighted in the previous research, the Tier 1 ISPs are not as motivated to peer with the non-Tier 1 ISPs8. Hence, as shown in Figure 1, the interest in peering is generally one-sided. Success Stories. The research revealed success stories demonstrating ISPs that started with little or no peering and obtained wide spread peering in a short time period by using one or more of the enumerated tactics. For example, Digital Island Peering Coordinator Mitchell Rose established 50 peering relationships using a variety of tactics described below inside of a year9. In two years time, Telia10 migrated their Internet traffic from 85% transit and 15% peering to 15% transit and 85% peering through aggressively pursuing several of these tactics. Joe McGuckin (Via.net) has emerged with a blended traffic cost of $30/Mbps with a focused 80% peering mix. Tactical Peering. This section enumerates 17 tactics that have been used to obtain peering. Where appropriate, we highlight those tactics that are only applicable for obtaining peering with Tier 2 ISPs. 1. Direct Approach By far the simplest approach to obtain peering is to ask for it. Sometimes the response includes a set of peering prerequisites, and, if the prerequisites are met, a follow up discussion with the target ISP to negotiate peering. The “Internet Service Providers and Peering” documents a handful of ways of initiating this interaction. For each tactic we present in this paper we December, 2001: “New Directions in Peering for Tier-2 and Content Providers “ , Jeb R. Linton, Staff Network Engineer, EarthLink, [email protected] 7 I don’t have a good reference for this but have heard this quote many times.
View Full Document
Unlocking...