Network peering policy in 2014?

Forums › New Zealand Broadband › Network peering policy in 2014?

1 | 2 | 3

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#997930 3-Mar-2014 07:42

Sounddude: Will also be very interesting to see what Peering policy comes out of the VF/TCL merger, as they have very different ideas on peering.

And more importantly what impact this could/will have on Telecom if Vodafone move TCL to more open peering.

myfullflavour

896 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Full Flavour

#997945 3-Mar-2014 09:05

raytaylor: it is cheaper for you just to get the data to sydney, only for telecom to bring it back again and backhaul it themselves down to christchurch to their broadband subscriber.

This seems absolutley stupid.

It would be costing telecom more because they are bringing the data from sydney, over a longer and slower route, giving their customer a worse expierence.

Yip. And if you're an ISP and your international consumption is mostly inbound, and that inbound capacity is paid for by those who use it (i.e. your own end users), there is likely 'spare' or 'free' outbound capacity.

So for some ISPs who decide to send traffic to Telecom/Telstra via their international, it could be considered "free" to do this.

Unfortunately this doesn't apply in our case as the type of traffic we're sending (high quality live video) at peak volumes exceeds our inbound.

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#997972 3-Mar-2014 10:10

"So for some ISPs who decide to send traffic to Telecom/Telstra via their international, it could be considered "free" to do this."

I don't believe any ISPS in NZ send data to Telecom/Telstra via an international path. There may have been faults in the past which some data may have done it but its not the norm.

Can you give any examples right now?

deadlyllama

1260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#998043 3-Mar-2014 11:32

myfullflavour:
Zeon: berhaps if Telecom/Vodafone don't play ball then everyone else can create a cartel and force all their traffic via Sydney to Telecom/Vodafone. If I were running an ISP that's what I would do TBH - I don't like the idea of a larger ISP flexing its muscles to extort money from smaller ISPs when both are neither major content providers.

It costs us $1400 to deliver 20 hours of live streaming to 1000 Telecom viewers from Sydney at present and we can scale capacity up and down very rapidly.

To deliver this same content to Telecom via APE (Auckland Peering Exchange), the price halves. To deliver this same content to Telecom via paid transit, the price goes up by 5x.

If Telecom wanted to peer with us privately at Sky Tower, we'd do this.

$1400 is 10TB from AWS. 145Mbps for 20 hours according to Google calculator.

Why deliver from Sydney? At that point, why not ship the stream to a dedicated server somewhere with cheap bandwidth (the US?) If you get enough video streaming work, that option may be worthwhile.

Sounddude

I fix stuff!
1928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#998055 3-Mar-2014 11:46

myfullflavour:
Zeon: berhaps if Telecom/Vodafone don't play ball then everyone else can create a cartel and force all their traffic via Sydney to Telecom/Vodafone. If I were running an ISP that's what I would do TBH - I don't like the idea of a larger ISP flexing its muscles to extort money from smaller ISPs when both are neither major content providers.

It costs us $1400 to deliver 20 hours of live streaming to 1000 Telecom viewers from Sydney at present and we can scale capacity up and down very rapidly.

To deliver this same content to Telecom via APE (Auckland Peering Exchange), the price halves. To deliver this same content to Telecom via paid transit, the price goes up by 5x.

If Telecom wanted to peer with us privately at Sky Tower, we'd do this.

Orcon used to run the Isky CDN before Akamai took over.

We were pushing massive amount of traffic at peak time to Telecom subs (gigs per second when the Rugby was on) and we still couldn't discuss peering other than their 20 peering point product. TCL was just as tough on it.

Their view is "We have the Eyeballs, you should be paying us"

We still have the CDN btw if you are interested in using it :-) (And the peering!)

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#998065 3-Mar-2014 11:57

Sounddude: [snip]
We were pushing massive amount of traffic at peak time to Telecom subs (gigs per second when the Rugby was on) [snip]

Well, gigs per second isn't a huge amount, and then there's the fact that under the old iSky CDN whenever the rugby started the streams fell over anyway :-) (Yes I know that was nothing to do with Orcon - it was Sky TVs issue :-)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Sounddude

I fix stuff!
1928 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#998079 3-Mar-2014 12:21

Talkiet:
Well, gigs per second isn't a huge amount, and then there's the fact that under the old iSky CDN whenever the rugby started the streams fell over anyway :-) (Yes I know that was nothing to do with Orcon - it was Sky TVs issue :-)

Yup, unrelated to the peering :-)

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Beccara

1469 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#998128 3-Mar-2014 13:03

To play devils advocate here, Has anyone thought about the cost of peering and the business case for it. Open peering would provide no benefit to them and alot of cost. Telecom may very well need 40g interfaces at the major IX's or atleast multiple 10g's all so other's can reach their clients. The cost's of their International transit will be extremely low so it's cheaper for Telecom to send it out to Sydney.

Overall the paid peering options Telecom/Telstra put forth aren't that bad, It's hovering around $5-10/mbit, You can peer for free if you are in the EX's which some are for EUBA.

The thing about peering is it's about peer's, I'd argue that outside of Vodafone Telecom has no peer's in NZ. It you look to others worldwide you see things far more horrific:

L3:

"must have a backbone network node in at least six of the nine U.S. Census Bureau Divisions in the United States (New England, Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, East South Central, East North Central, West North Central, West South Central, Mountain, Pacific);"
"must have a fully redundant backbone network, in which the majority of its interhub trunking links shall have a capacity of at least 9953 Mbps (OC-192);"

Comcast:

Applicant must meet Comcast at a minimum of four mutually agreeable geographically diverse points in the US. Interconnection points must include at least one city on the US east coast, one in the central region, and one on the US west coast, and must currently be chosen from Comcast peering points in the following list of metropolitan areas: New York City/Newark NJ, Ashburn, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Denver, Dallas, Los Angeles, Palo Alto/San Jose, and Seattle.

Applicant’s traffic to/from the Comcast network must be on-net only and must amount to at least 20 Gbps average in the dominant direction. Interconnection bandwidth must be at least 10 Gbps at each interconnection point

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

myfullflavour

896 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Full Flavour

#998534 3-Mar-2014 23:46

Beccara: Open peering would provide no benefit to them and alot of cost.

The benefit is reducing load immediately from their international transit paths and improved experience for their end-users.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#998554 4-Mar-2014 07:52

myfullflavour:
Beccara: Open peering would provide no benefit to them and alot of cost.

The benefit is reducing load immediately from their international transit paths and improved experience for their end-users.

Cynical view: large ISPs aren't in the business of improving user experience. They are in the business of moving bits and charging for it.

If users complain, they improve a little. If not, things remain the same. Users don't know what difference peering would make and users don't even know peering exists.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#998556 4-Mar-2014 07:58

myfullflavour:
Beccara: Open peering would provide no benefit to them and alot of cost.

The benefit is reducing load immediately from their international transit paths and improved experience for their end-users.

I thought it was stated in this thread that this is cheaper for them anyway?

As for improved experience, will the improvement be meaningful? If not, then it probably isn't worth doing.
An extra 10ms latency on video streaming, say, is not going to be noticed by anyone in real world conditions IMHO

myfullflavour

896 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Full Flavour

#998563 4-Mar-2014 08:19

NonprayingMantis: An extra 10ms latency on video streaming, say, is not going to be noticed by anyone in real world conditions IMHO

This is the problem of opinions and a lack real-world experience.

When delivering heavy video traffic from outside of New Zealand, we've seen major packet loss at different hops on the path back to the end user.

One of our clients was using a US-based service where it was a 50% chance service would fall over for Telecom users, with other ISPs not affected.

Performance improves somewhat via Sydney but there are still a number of hops we don't control and we can't guarantee the capacity exists all the way back to the destination telco.

We almost never see these problems with New Zealand-based peers, and if there was an issue, the smaller number of parties involved means issues can be identified and resolved fairly fast.

Edit: I spotted this on another thread:

StanleyTodd: im getting slow speeds since 1st March cant get over 1Mbps international, voda has changed something. im not the only one in welly with this issue.

And aren't these posts too common! Forget sending a 3Mbps 720p HD stream to this user from an internationally-based server.

Zeon

3916 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#998582 4-Mar-2014 09:35

I'd say just deliver it to Telecom/Telstra via Sydney and everyone else via NZIX peering points. Make them pay for their choice and the user experience shouldn't be too different anyway.

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Ragnor

8218 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#998847 4-Mar-2014 14:43

sbiddle:
Sounddude: Will also be very interesting to see what Peering policy comes out of the VF/TCL merger, as they have very different ideas on peering.

And more importantly what impact this could/will have on Telecom if Vodafone move TCL to more open peering.

Doubt the beancounters will let them give up Telstraclears transit revenue.

pchs

185 posts

Master Geek

#998873 4-Mar-2014 15:24

And aren't these posts too common! Forget sending a 3Mbps 720p HD stream to this user from an internationally-based server.

I can stream both Hulu and Netflix from the USA to NZ with super HD content across my Snap connection and rarely see any buffering. It generally pulls around 7-10Mbps, having a look at a TCP Dump of where the Hulu content was actually coming from and the latency is approximately 200ms between the content and me.

1 | 2 | 3