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
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
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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
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@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
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@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
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owend@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
On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Jay Hanke wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owend@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.
No, that's a very gross oversimplification. Akamai does a lot of traffic engineering.
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).
I doubt BGP metrics will actually have much effect on Akamai's traffic engineering decisions. I'm not saying I think Akamai will do bad things, but, the control of where the traffic goes will be almost entirely in the hands of Akamai and you are along for the ride. Owen
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
Exactly. The traffic balance will follow internet BGP magic.
No, that's a very gross oversimplification. Akamai does a lot of traffic engineering.
I'm talking about the traffic feeding the cluster. We'll (MICE) control the router and BGP advertisements on that side. Granted inbound traffic balancing is not hugely flexible. On the traffic coming out of the cluster that's all in the hands of Akamai. There is a risk that the Akamai cluster may end up feeding 3rd parties. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
participants (4)
-
Frank Bulk -
Jay Hanke -
Mike Horwath -
Owen DeLong