Relationships Between
Networks
A Global Perspective
Berlin, June 7, 2001
Agenda
●
1. Internet Globalization
– Cable & Wireless
●
2. Peering
– History,concept, strategy, mechanism
●
3. Example: Euro Networks
– Peering local, regional, global
●
4. Peering Policies
– US, global
Growth Rates
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 CAGR 1996 - 2005 96% 30% 12% Te ra b y te s /D a yCircuit S witched Voice & Internet T raffic F orecas t Worldwide (1996-2005) Internet T raffic Data T raffic Circuit S witched
Everything over IP
and
‘C&W has undergone a radical trans formation and we believe it is better pos itioned to deliver than ever before.’
Credit S uis s e F irs t B os ton, Aug 00
“C&W is res tructured and one of the few fully funded E uropean telecom operators and is s et to compete a 's ingle AS number', global IP network by the end of 2001, enabling the s tronges t quality of IP s ervices ."
Morgan S tanley, Aug 00
“T he s tage is s et for the greates t trans formation s tory in E uropean telecoms . T hes e days nobody has any doubts
about what Cable & Wireles s is for."
Backbones connect to each other:
they PEER
%DFNERQH 1HWZRUN %DFNERQH 1HWZRUN %DFNERQH 1HWZRUN %DFNERQH 1HWZRUNRoute Announcements
●
Networks announce routes to one another
●
Peers announce only their own address
space
●
Peers only accept traffic destined for
themselves
%DFNERQH1HWZRUN
%DFNERQH 1HWZRUN
MCI Backbone 1995
45 Mbps DS-3 6( -6& 0 /& $ 572 +6 1 '0 3 ,' & :6 3 :6 3 &+ 7 1< 8 *1 -$6 7 $6 7 32 % :71 :71 '1 * 12 5 :25 :25 +$ < +$ < '1'1- -DS3 LinkSingle Core POP Dual Core POP
Direct and Public Peering in the US
nxDS3 + OC-12c n x DS3 and/or n x OC-3c and/or n x OC-12c ISP &DEOH :LUHOHVV %DFNERQH C&W Customers MAE West ISPs OC-12c PAIX nxDS3 PacBell NAP Ameritech NAP nxDS3 + OC-12c ISPs MAE East nxDS3 + OC-12c ISPs Direct Peers ISP ISP nxDS3 Sprint NAP n x DS3 and/or n x OC-3c and/or n x OC-12cUS Internet Industry Structure
National Backbone Providers
Tier One
Tier Two
Tier Three
Regional Providers
Local ISP’s
Global Peering
One AS R egional IS P CWE R egional IS P E bone R egional IS P E UNet Natl IS P Natl IS P Natl IS P Natl IS P E CR C Natl IS P CWC Global IS P GC Global IS P AS 3561Peering Strategy
●
Use Groups of Routes
– Community strings can be announced
selectively
– Easy to implement – Vendor independent
●
Provide value for value
– Similar geographical coverage
– Similar position in the marketplace – Similar mutual benefit
Paradigm Change
●
“To Peer Or Not To Peer” turns into:
- Peer with whom?
- Peer at which locations? - Peer with which routes?
●
Peering can, once again, be a mutually
Reality Check:
Cable & Wireless
Global IP Node Rollout 2000/01
● 84 new network nodes ● 200 European POPs
Current European Peering
●
Cable & Wireless 16 Euro ISPs have:
- > 325 peering relationships
- > 1200 logical peering connections
●
Few or no rules
●
Few documented relationships
●
LINX Peering Agreement is standard
Euro Exchange Points
Munich Copenhagen Amsterdam Paris ParisSIX
Bern/ZurichThe Vienna Internet eXchange (VIX) Norwegian Internet eXchange
FIC
IX
Finnish Comm ercial Intern et Exch ange 7HOHKRXVH,QWHUQHW ([FKDQJH7,; ZurichBNIX
BrusselsDE-CIX
FrankfurtM-CIX
Munich ESPANIX Madrid MIX/Milan PIX/LisbonMAE
Paris/Frankfurt NAP Nautilus RomeC&W US Peering Policy
● Redundant US national
OC-48c backbone
● Nodes in 9 geographic
areas
● Have presence at 4 NAPs
of at least DS-3
● 24x7 NOC
● Full CIDR routes, BGP-4,
aggregate, no default
● Register routes & policy
with IRR
● Consistent route
announcements
● Do not announce third party
routes
● Minimum 20 Mbps average
traffic
● Traffic imbalance 2 : 1 or less ● Must nor receive this peers
route announcements from third party
●
Relationships of equals
– Global, Regional, National
– Community strings enable us to do so
●
Multi-Billion Network Investment
– Global network, single AS
– n*lambda: US, Europe, Japan
●
Peering Strategy
– Similar investments and scope – Similar mutual benefit
– Relationships of equals
