- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Akamai Peering

by Jay Hanke

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)he.net> wrote: > I doubt Akamai will use them evenly. Akamai will toss traffic wherever it is most advantageous > to Akamai. > Exactly. The traffic balance will follow internet BGP magic. > They will not likely saturate anyone's network (after all, that's also counter-productive for their > own goals in most cases). Also consider that the cluster will output significantly more bandwidth than is downloaded over the Internet the load shouldn't be more than the benefit. In smaller deployments, I've commonly seen bandwidth savings of 2:1 or 3:1. If things got really lopsided we could modify the BGP attributes to even it out. We're not talking a huge amount of bandwidth with a small cluster (100 or 200 Mb/s peak down from the internet). jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Owen DeLong

I doubt Akamai will use them evenly. Akamai will toss traffic wherever it is most advantageous to Akamai. They will not likely saturate anyone's network (after all, that's also counter-productive for their own goals in most cases). Owen On Apr 13, 2011, at 7:38 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > If three carriers participated by providing transit, how would Akamai use the transit links evenly, either between transit links or participating carriers? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:35 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Akamai Peering > > If I placed one of the smaller Akamai clusters in 511, would carriers > be interested in peering with the condition that they provide > transport to "feed" the cluster? > > The idea would be that carriers using the cluster would share in the > costs. So Carrier A would peer over MICE a router in front of the > cluster with the agreement that they advertise the cluster IP > addresses to the Internet. Carrier B would do the same thing. > > Jay > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Frank Bulk

If three carriers participated by providing transit, how would Akamai use the transit links evenly, either between transit links or participating carriers? Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:35 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Akamai Peering If I placed one of the smaller Akamai clusters in 511, would carriers be interested in peering with the condition that they provide transport to "feed" the cluster? The idea would be that carriers using the cluster would share in the costs. So Carrier A would peer over MICE a router in front of the cluster with the agreement that they advertise the cluster IP addresses to the Internet. Carrier B would do the same thing. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Jay Hanke

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > ONLY Akamai, right? > Right > If so, I'd give transit over my three uplinks. Source bandwidth on our small cluster isn't an issue. > > But if this is a larger cluster, then sharing with others would be a bg win. I'm all for giving to the community that is MICE, but I can't give away the farm. (notice I said larger, not large) > Another option could be to update the your BGP feed and permit MICE use your existing cluster. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 13, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Mike Horwath

ONLY Akamai, right? Nothing else? If so, I'd give transit over my three uplinks. Source bandwidth on our small cluster isn't an issue. But if this is a larger cluster, then sharing with others would be a bg win. I'm all for giving to the community that is MICE, but I can't give away the farm. (notice I said larger, not large) May need some ARIN love for a network so we can all advertise a consistent block, or we all need to have separate destinations already announced to the greater 'net. Option two would be a little more work but has the greatest benefit in that each MICE peer can give a /?? to the Akamai cluster, and whatever router is there is a NAT system mapping all provided addresses to the backbends Akamai cluster. Yes, a little hackery but I like how it sounds in my head. I also just got up, so maybe I'm still sleep dumb. -- Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 13, 2011

Akamai Peering

by Jay Hanke

If I placed one of the smaller Akamai clusters in 511, would carriers be interested in peering with the condition that they provide transport to "feed" the cluster? The idea would be that carriers using the cluster would share in the costs. So Carrier A would peer over MICE a router in front of the cluster with the agreement that they advertise the cluster IP addresses to the Internet. Carrier B would do the same thing. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 13, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Frank Bulk

Pretty much the same from the other direction. Anyone have a good contact at Level3? Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Dan Olsen Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:57 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content Seeing the same issue heading to netins in Iowa. I think ( Not the data guy here) Tracing route to www.netins.net<http://www.netins.net> [167.142.226.220] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 4 ms 1 ms 2 ms 198-174-42-254.windomnet.com [198.174.42.254] 2 6 ms 8 ms 8 ms 199.199.48.53 3 22 ms 20 ms 22 ms ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9] 4 21 ms 22 ms 23 ms vlan51.ebr1.chicago2.level3.net [4.69.138.158] 5 22 ms 21 ms 33 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.chicago1.level3.net [4.69.140.189] 6 25 ms 26 ms 25 ms ae-4-4.car1.minneapolis1.level3.net [4.69.136.105] 7 31 ms 30 ms 31 ms ae-11-11.car2.minneapolis1.level3.net [4.69.136.102] 8 36 ms 38 ms 38 ms nbc-communi.car2.minneapolis1.level3.net [4.59.66.2] 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 36 ms 33 ms 34 ms ins-db1-et-12-1.desm.netins.net [167.142.67.6] 12 34 ms 32 ms 34 ms webhosting.netins.net [167.142.226.220] Trace complete. Dan Olsen Operations Manager Windomnet City OF Windom 443 10th St PO Box 38 Windom MN 56101 507-832-8007 ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content I ran a couple of trace routes to "Minnesota Content". http://mankatonetworks.com/wordpress/?p=68 Hickorytech isn't currently exchanging traffic on the exchange. Would a couple of you who are forward looking run some traces to various Minnesota content and post results? jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3568 - Release Date: 04/12/11 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 13, 2011

Re: Akamai Survey

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 03:46:14PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > Who currently has an Akamai cluster in their network? ipHouse does. mtr downloads.apple.com Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. gw-ext-176-88.staff.iphouse.net 0.0% 8 0.8 1.4 0.8 4.9 1.4 2. c4500-1.bdr.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 7 0.7 1.8 0.7 3.3 1.0 3. akamai-103.colo.iphouse.com 0.0% 7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 Our DNS servers are public open if you want to test.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 12, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 04:07:08PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Dan Olsen <Dano(a)windomnet.com> wrote: > > Seeing the same issue heading to netins in Iowa. I think ( Not the data > > guy here) > > > > That's awful, did I read that right? > > Windom->Minneapolis->Chicago->Minneapolis (ON THE SAME CARRRIER!)->?->Iowa > > I think all of my routing is going to be doughnut from now on... Even > C!@#%! can route locally in Minneapolis. Pretty much the same here.. This one heads out to TX same as you mtr connectmn.org Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. gw-ext-176-88.staff.iphouse.net 0.0% 2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.0 2. ge0-2-0.m20-2.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.1 3. POS3-3.GW2.MSP3.ALTER.NET 0.0% 2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 4. 0.so-1-2-0.XL4.MSP1.ALTER.NET 0.0% 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.0 5. 0.so-7-1-0.XL4.CHI13.ALTER.NET 0.0% 2 10.2 10.1 10.0 10.2 0.1 6. 0.ae4.BR3.CHI13.ALTER.NET 0.0% 1 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 7. 204.255.168.154 0.0% 1 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 0.0 8. ASPEN-COMMUNICATIONS.GigabitEthe 0.0% 1 37.9 37.9 37.9 37.9 0.0 9. H101-230-94-69.adstx.net 0.0% 1 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 0.0 10. 74.113.21.164 0.0% 1 37.2 37.2 37.2 37.2 0.0 But this is the same mtr www.511.org Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. gw-ext-176-88.staff.iphouse.net 0.0% 8 1.0 1.4 0.7 5.3 1.6 2. ge0-2-0.m20-2.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 8 0.6 5.0 0.4 31.5 10.9 3. 207-67-87-137.static.twtelecom.n 0.0% 8 0.8 1.1 0.7 3.2 0.9 4. chi2-pr1-ge-7-1-0-0.us.twtelecom 0.0% 8 10.2 10.2 10.1 10.4 0.1 5. tg9-2.cr01.chcgildt.integra.net 0.0% 8 211.5 178.0 64.8 266.4 79.1 6. tg9-3.cr01.mplsmncd.integra.net 0.0% 8 171.0 188.5 132.4 263.0 49.3 7. te9-4.cr02.mplsmncd.integra.net 0.0% 8 66.2 117.6 66.2 178.7 40.9 8. tg13-2.cr02.sttlwatw.integra.net 0.0% 8 94.8 171.6 94.8 251.7 60.2 9. tg13-4.cr01.sttlwatw.integra.net 0.0% 7 206.0 161.2 88.1 230.5 54.3 10. tg13-1.cr01.ptleorte.integra.net 0.0% 7 105.3 116.8 64.9 194.0 46.9 11. tg9-1.ar10.ptldorfj.integra.net 0.0% 7 64.9 69.8 64.0 103.5 14.9 12. 67.51.66.253 0.0% 7 64.4 64.2 64.1 64.4 0.1 That seems to be Integra only peering in Chicago producing that result. Several different networks all backending to mplsmncd.integra.net (in 511??) Still need that Gigapop connection too.. mtr www.state.mn.us Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. gw-ext-176-88.staff.iphouse.net 0.0% 21 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.7 0.2 2. ge0-2-0.m20-1.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 21 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.0 3. ge-6-10.car2.Minneapolis1.Level3 0.0% 21 9.9 10.0 9.8 11.1 0.3 4. ae-5-5.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net 0.0% 21 49.1 42.0 36.4 49.5 4.6 5. ae-4-4.car2.KansasCity1.Level3.n 0.0% 21 40.4 42.2 40.2 79.3 8.5 6. ??? 7. amesia-gr-01-po-2.northernlights 0.0% 21 20.9 20.9 20.7 21.3 0.2 8. mtc-gr-01-po-2.northernlights.gi 0.0% 21 20.9 21.6 20.6 36.9 3.5 9. statecob-gr-01-te-2-2-3001.north 0.0% 21 20.6 21.0 20.6 22.4 0.5 10. som-thor-te-3-3-3001.northernlig 0.0% 21 20.9 20.8 20.5 21.5 0.2 11. cobnhagar-hub-Gi2-9.r.state.mn.u 0.0% 20 20.9 21.2 20.6 27.9 1.6 12. cobnlbsw1-sh-V52.r.state.mn.us 0.0% 20 20.7 20.9 20.7 21.2 0.1 13. www.state.mn.us 0.0% 20 20.9 21.0 20.7 22.7 0.4 Or perhaps Qwest too.. mtr www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. gw-ext-176-88.staff.iphouse.net 0.0% 17 0.8 1.4 0.7 10.2 2.3 2. ge0-2-0.m20-2.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 17 0.4 2.3 0.3 30.5 7.3 3. ge0-2-0.m20-1.mpls.iphouse.net 0.0% 17 0.4 0.8 0.4 5.2 1.2 4. ge-6-10.car2.Minneapolis1.Level3 0.0% 17 10.0 10.0 9.8 10.6 0.2 5. ae-11-11.car1.Minneapolis1.Level 0.0% 17 9.8 9.9 9.7 10.0 0.1 6. ae-4-4.ebr1.Chicago1.Level3.net 0.0% 17 13.5 14.1 9.8 22.1 4.0 7. ae-6-6.ebr1.Chicago2.Level3.net 0.0% 17 10.2 10.0 9.8 10.2 0.1 8. ae-1-51.edge4.Chicago3.Level3.ne 0.0% 17 9.8 9.9 9.8 10.3 0.1 9. chp-brdr-03.inet.qwest.net 0.0% 17 10.1 10.0 9.8 10.1 0.1 10. min-core-02.inet.qwest.net 0.0% 16 19.9 19.9 19.7 20.2 0.2 11. min-edge-10.inet.qwest.net 0.0% 16 19.8 19.8 19.7 20.0 0.1 12. 65.126.82.250 0.0% 16 23.2 32.1 20.8 127.2 27.6 13. www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us 0.0% 16 23.9 22.5 20.8 32.6 2.9 -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 12, 2011

Re: Akamai Survey

by James Stahr

At 03:46 PM 4/12/2011, Jay Hanke wrote: >Who currently has an Akamai cluster in their network? We've got a few hosts on our network, but they are located in our Madison facility. -James CDW Technologies (formerly Berbee/binc.net) ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 12, 2011