Mostly what Mark says.
From my point of view I have a lot of traffic during the day to business customers. For example the Ministry of Social Development is on 202.27.55.0/24 and is a "Telecom"[1] customer.
I would expect them to be included if I was in a "peering" agreement with Telecom. Seriously this Global Gateway[2] vs Telecom thing may make a lot of sense within Telecom but to the rest of the world it is just another entity and policy that has to be worked though. To encourage providers to host in New Zealand (especially if somebody like Amazon comes into Australia) then it really has to be cheap and simple. You have to be able to say "Pay around $2000/month to somebody to host a rack and then $1000/month for a GE on APE and your reach 99% of New Zealand sites". Each stage you make it harder than that will greatly reduce the number of people who will bother. [1] - As in the originating AS is 4648. [2] - Note the URL - http://www.telecom.co.nz/globalgateway On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Wayne Kampjes wrote:
I suppose what I was probing was the understanding of the products. CID and SBI are layer 2 products, not sure how you peer layer2 internet access. One office and Remote office aren't 'Internet' products - they are VPNs so I don't think the customers woul be happy to have Telecom 'peer'. GGI (international and domestic) - a story in their own right but wouldn't be covered by the Telecom peering being discussed as it isn't 'Telecom" traffic - it is 'GGI' traffic (a seperate business unit? School Zone - a partial VN, partial Internet access. Maybe too hard? I personally haven't thought about it. Dial-up - sits on a differant platform so was probably not considered worth the effort given the traffic levels. LLU backhaul - how do you 'peer' a backhaul? Layer 2 sent from a DSLAM to the Access Seeker? No idea about Telecom Hosted Applications. My opinions anyway. Cheers Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Bill Walker Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012 01:32 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] State of the IX.
Isn't the main reason you'd want to peer to enable you to get all traffic? especially when the barrier to entry for local peering is high due to needed your own inter metro capacity?
Cheers,
Bill
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:22:46 +1300, Wayne Kampjes wrote:
Which catagories of traffic in that list do you think should be incuded in a local Internet peering?
Cheers Wayne
-----Original Message----- From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Simon Lyall Sent: Wednesday, 1 February 2012 12:39 To: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: [nznog] State of the IX.
Note in the PDF which customers are *not* included.
Traffic not initially included: Corporate Internet Direct (CID) Global Gateway International (GGI) One Office Remote Office LLU Backhaul Telecom Dial-up Secure Business Internet Telecom Hosted applications School Zone Downstream GGI domestic Any customers with static IP addresses
Note the requirement to have a 24x7 NOC. You can get pretty big these days without having one. I suspect there are several in the top 50 largest websites in the world (eg Wikipedia, craigslist, reddit ).
-- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.