Remote Internet Peering Vs IP Transit: A Shift in Internet Architecture
- 1. LU-CIX General Assembly Day Remote Peering – A Shift in Internet Architecture Ruth Plater, Head of Marketing 25 July 2013, Luxembourg
- 2. Agenda ü Who is IX Reach? ü Peering Vs. Transit ü Traditional Peering Model ü Challenges to this Model ü Remote Peering Model and it’s Impact ü International Vs. Local ü The Reaction of Internet Exchange Points ü Conclusions
- 3. Who is IX Reach? ü Global Layer 2 Ethernet and MPLS network ü 30 Major global cities (and growing) ü 20 Internet Exchanges in Europe and the US ü 75+ data centres on-net ü Network connectivity and colocation solutions providers ü Global leaders in remote peering
- 4. Peering Vs. Transit Peering ü Settlement-free interconnection between two networks ü Cost efficient ü Traffic optimisation and low latency ü Scalability and redundancy ü Improved end-user experience – closer to the eyeballs ü Community and marketing Transit ü Connecting smaller ISPs, for a fee, to the larger Internet ü Historically more expensive ü No control over routes
- 5. Traditional Peering Model Source: Re-Designed from Dr. Peering
- 6. Challenges to this Model ü Fixed costs (ports, colocation, routers) ü Faster decline in Transit costs, with no end in sight
- 7. Remote Peering Model Source: Re-Designed from Dr. Peering
- 8. How does Remote Peering Help? ü Further cost reductions: ü No colocation or hardware infrastructure at each IX required ü No deployment/install fees ü Bundled transport and connections at the Exchanges ü Lower operational costs – customers only pay for the CDR they need ü Reduction in upstream costs and reliance on multiple transit connections ü Paperwork is vastly reduced for the IXPs ü Single point of contact for legal, technical and billing for the customer ü Turning up peering is a lot faster Peering is therefore more accessible to smaller/medium sized networks and developing markets.
- 9. More to Consider: International Vs. Local ü We used to say “peering keeps traffic local” ü Remote peering promotes international traffic exchange ü But it makes less sense over longer distances ü Content providers want to be closer to the eye-balls ü As a result more of a business case for local IXPs to be built ü Network operators in developing markets connecting “locally” with each other in remote locations ü Higher adoption of remote peering to cut costs and headaches
- 10. Reaction of IXPs to this Shift ü Larger IXPs with critical mass are less at risk than smaller IXs without critical ü IXPs are behaving more and more like networks: ü Expanding geographically (both domestically and internationally) - becoming multi-site IXPs ü Larger IXs are expanding into new global markets (UAE-IX powered by DE- CIX) ü Small IXs are expanding regionally and offering remote peering to bigger IXs ü Some have their own partial networks and offer connectivity It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between international and local peering, and Networks and Internet Exchanges.
- 11. LU-CIX: Central European Peering Hub
- 12. LU-CIX: Central European Peering Hub
- 13. Conclusions ü Transit costs continue to fall and there’s no end in sight ü Peering is still valuable for a network and operators normally use (or at least consider) a blend of peering direct, remote peering AND transit ü Remote peering reduces the costs of peering further ü However, this makes less sense over longer distances ü Remote peering is a great way to get closer to eyeballs ü The roles of networks and IXPs will change in the future – it’s already happening! ü Developing markets will play a vital part in this shift
- 14. A Message from our HQ in London