Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP TransitRail: National Commodity Peering Program May 16, 2006 Quilt Minneapolis.

Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

TransitRail: National Commodity Peering

Program May 16, 2006

QuiltMinneapolis


Premise

Successful large-scale commodity Peering can...– Decrease commodity costs and

result in overall savings– Reduce reliance on commercial

vendors– Increase routing efficiency and

flexibility


TransitRail Is/Will Be...

– NATIONAL• Multiple exchange locations around the US;

– COMMODITY • packet-agnostic• Connections at commercial peering

exchange points;

– PEERING• Direct network-to-network bilateral IP Packet

exchange


TransitRail Goal

Goal: create a network presence and infrastructure that will attract and retain TierOne type peering to the benefit of the R&E community


What to Expect

TransitRail participants are likely to experience anywhere from a 25% to 60+% reduction in the overall traffic that normally goes over their commodity ISP circuits.


CENIC ExperienceCommodity only - no R&E

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Jan-

04

Mar

-04

May

-04

Jul-0

4

Sep-

04

Nov-0

4

Jan-

05

Mar

-05

May

-05

Jul-0

5

Sep-

05

Nov-0

5

Jan-

06

Mar

-06

May

-06

Jul-0

6

Sep-

06

Nov-0

6

Jan-

07

Mar

-07

May

-07

Peering Volume

Transit Volume

Aggregate

Linear (Aggregate)

Linear (Peering Volume)


TransitRail is NOT…

• R&E network peering• Regional/local peering• Many-to-many peering

facility• An alternative for 100% of all

your commodity transit needs

• Pacific Wave


Who

• CENIC and Pacific Northwest Gigapop are jointly proposing, developing, and implementing the TransitRail facility.

• These groups have significant individual and joint experience with peering facilities and prospective peering partners

• Partnering with NLR who will provide the underlying network infrastructure as well as the relationship with the participants.


Chronology

• Phase 0 underway (Traffic loading test: “Peer Sharing”)– No cost to participants– CENIC, PNWGP sharing subset of peers

• Phase 1 (initial five-location buildout)– No cost to participants– CENIC, PNWGP funding startup costs,

providing staff

• Phase 2 (adding participants and locations)– Cost model to participants (developed in

Phase 1)


Phase 0 Connectivity* Abovenet* Accretive Networks* Adelphia Cable* AllStream* Akamai* AsiaNetCom* BBC* Blackoak* Bungi* CableCom* China Telecom* Cogent * Cox Cable* DaCom* DSLnet* Earthlink* EBay* Electric Lightwave* Electronics Arts* Epoch* FLAG Telecom* Global Naps* Globix* Google* GT Telecom/360 Networks* Hanaro Telecom* HopOne* Hurricane Electric* IIJ* Inet Main Street* Internet Software Consortium* Japan Telecom* Jupiter Hosting* KDDI

* Korea Telecom* Limelight* Maxim* Microsoft Corporation* MySpace* Mzima* nLayer* Nokia* Packet Clearing House* Peer1 Networks* PoweredCom* Primus Telecom* RCN* Reach Networks* ServePath* Shaw Communications* SingTel* Sony Entertainment* Speakeasy* SunRise Telecom* Swisscom-IP+* TDS Telecom* Time Warner Telecom* Telecom Malaysia* TTNet* UltraDNS* ViaNet* WV Fiber* XMission* XO Communications* Yahoo!* Zocalo


Phase 0:Front Range Gigapop & CalREN


Phase 0:Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center & CalREN


Phase 0: PNWGP


Phase 0:Aggregate at CENIC


Phase 1: What’s Next

• Peering node builds: LA, Sunnyvale, Seattle, Chicago, Washington DC. Location selection criteria: – a) reasonable proximity, and access, to an

NLR POP; – b) dispersed east-west locations; – c) highest peering potential based on fiscal

investment for that location.

• Initial participants: PSC, FRGP, MATP, CENIC, PNWGP

• Interest expressed: LEARN, SOX


Infrastructure

• Equipment (CISCO 7600s)• Links (NLR Framenet), loops

to exchange points• New autonomous system • Restrictive peering policy to

maximize return


Seattle (Westin Bldg)

Sunnyvale

Los Angeles(Equinix LAP)

DC

Chicago

PAIX

1 Wilshire

Equinix LAX

Equinix Ashburn

Equinix

Phase1 TrialNLR FrameNet Backbone


We Need Numbers

• From (potentially) interested participants we need data:– Aggregate peak transit usage

and trends– # routes (IRR object(s))– Current transit providers– Current peers and peak

peering volume


Getting Connected

• Phase 0 was proof of concept only, no further participation

• Some additional participation in Phase 1 may be possible– Current traffic estimates show us

approaching 6Gbps– We think it would be nice if we didn't break

NLR

• Additional participation in Phase 2 actively being sought


Phase “Infinity and Beyond”

• Add NYC, Atlanta, Dallas,…other?

• Facilitate a standard connection & delivery system


Seattle (Westin Bldg)

Sunnyvale

Los Angeles (Equinix LAP)

Dallas

Atlanta IX/PAIX

DC

New York

Chicago

PAIX

1 Wilshire

Equinix LAX

Equinix SJ(future?)

Equinix Ashburn

25 B'way

Equinix

Equinix

Atlanta

111 8th

Phase 2Conceptual Diagram


Cost Model

• Cost Model: cost to end organizations should be less than Quilt-based CIS pricing

• Many cost model questions– Fixed cost per connection

(1GE, 10GE)?– Measured service?


Routing Policies

• What TransitRail requires of its peers– 3-5 locations throughout US– Large amount of traffic

exchanged per peer– Reliable Operations


Routing Policies

• What TransitRail requires of its peering participants– Structured local preference– Maintained IRR object– Willingness to tune

announcements to L3/Wiltel/C&W (to attain highest amount of usage)


Business Side

• Peering solicitations, agreements

• NOC support• Infrastructure upgrades


Q&A

Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP TransitRail: National Commodity Peering Program May 16, 2006 Quilt Minneapolis.

Documents

participants cenic

pnwgp phase

pnwgp chronology phase

pnwgp transitrail iswill

flexibility slide

zocalo slide

community slide

pnwgp transitrail goal