[Snap] Telecom Peering

Forums › 2degrees (including Slingshot, Orcon, Flip, Stuff Fibre, MyRepublic, 2talk and Vocus) › [Snap] Telecom Peering

kiwirock

694 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141

#126794 20-Jul-2013 00:10

Just curious as I'm sure Telstra used to pop up on routes to Telecom DSL customers not that long ago.

How long has Snap been peering with Telecom?

Cheers,
Gavin.

Publius

276 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#862669 20-Jul-2013 17:27

I noticed on telecom dsl in chch pinging a virtual server in chch and the traceroute showed traffic staying within the region, I was (pleasantly) surprised.
Vodafone now sees to be the "peering bad boy". Vodafone dsl in chch pinging same virtual server in chch, traffic going via Wellington (WIX). :(
Telecom seems to offer peering for a while now, but an isp has to get their network to where telecoms begins (29 places around the country)
Here is a 2010 press release from FX networks saying the have peered with telecom in 19 of 29 of those locations, so if you pay FX you can easily peer with lots of Telecom dsl customers.

But i cant help with snap specific information, sorry.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#862680 20-Jul-2013 18:05

Publius: I noticed on telecom dsl in chch pinging a virtual server in chch and the traceroute showed traffic staying within the region, I was (pleasantly) surprised.
Vodafone now sees to be the "peering bad boy". Vodafone dsl in chch pinging same virtual server in chch, traffic going via Wellington (WIX). :(
Telecom seems to offer peering for a while now, but an isp has to get their network to where telecoms begins (29 places around the country)
Here is a 2010 press release from FX networks saying the have peered with telecom in 19 of 29 of those locations, so if you pay FX you can easily peer with lots of Telecom dsl customers.

But i cant help with snap specific information, sorry.

That's not peering but rather Telecom forcing content providers to pay for the transit to their customers.... Same old Telecom story

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Publius

276 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 27

#862681 20-Jul-2013 18:13

Zeon:
Publius: I noticed on telecom dsl in chch pinging a virtual server in chch and the traceroute showed traffic staying within the region, I was (pleasantly) surprised.
Vodafone now sees to be the "peering bad boy". Vodafone dsl in chch pinging same virtual server in chch, traffic going via Wellington (WIX). :(
Telecom seems to offer peering for a while now, but an isp has to get their network to where telecoms begins (29 places around the country)
Here is a 2010 press release from FX networks saying the have peered with telecom in 19 of 29 of those locations, so if you pay FX you can easily peer with lots of Telecom dsl customers.

But i cant help with snap specific information, sorry.

That's not peering but rather Telecom forcing content providers to pay for the transit to their customers.... Same old Telecom story

Seems fair to me. Peering is always at a particular location. The point of peering is to keep local (eg chch is a good example because its a fair way from Wellington or Auckland and from a DR POV makes sense to keep it local) traffic local, ie not going via USA, etc. You cant do this without breaking up the network into locations which telecom did do.

Peering and transit are two different things.

EG. Im in CHCH and want to peer with WIX in wellington. I have to get my own transit to wellington. Thats fair.

Zeon

3926 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759

Trusted

#862692 20-Jul-2013 18:44

Publius:
Zeon:
Publius: I noticed on telecom dsl in chch pinging a virtual server in chch and the traceroute showed traffic staying within the region, I was (pleasantly) surprised.
Vodafone now sees to be the "peering bad boy". Vodafone dsl in chch pinging same virtual server in chch, traffic going via Wellington (WIX). :(
Telecom seems to offer peering for a while now, but an isp has to get their network to where telecoms begins (29 places around the country)
Here is a 2010 press release from FX networks saying the have peered with telecom in 19 of 29 of those locations, so if you pay FX you can easily peer with lots of Telecom dsl customers.

But i cant help with snap specific information, sorry.

That's not peering but rather Telecom forcing content providers to pay for the transit to their customers.... Same old Telecom story

Seems fair to me. Peering is always at a particular location. The point of peering is to keep local (eg chch is a good example because its a fair way from Wellington or Auckland and from a DR POV makes sense to keep it local) traffic local, ie not going via USA, etc. You cant do this without breaking up the network into locations which telecom did do.

Peering and transit are two different things.

EG. Im in CHCH and want to peer with WIX in wellington. I have to get my own transit to wellington. Thats fair.

Yes true if you pay for transit to your peering point but what happens with Telecom is that lets say the content provider is in Auckland, that provider must pay to send the data to say Invercargill's Telecom peering point. When I think of peering, its advertising all my netblocks at the peering points - not just local ones to that peering point.

Speedtest 2019-10-14

Chippo

129 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 52

Trusted

#862899 21-Jul-2013 09:20

Telecom and TelstraClear have offered peering for many years, although at a per-Mb rate which was only ever sensible for ISPs in areas where they were also offering hosting services. The justification being that they were providing transit around the country, even it was to THEIR customers.

I hear that with the plummeting cost of international transit, it was even briefly cheaper to send everything offshore. It makes sense that these local costs have likely dropped to a rate that it's actually sustainable.

I work for a global Data Protection Software company - But my opinions are my own.

myfullflavour

896 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Trusted

Full Flavour

#862917 21-Jul-2013 09:45

Chippo: I hear that with the plummeting cost of international transit, it was even briefly cheaper to send everything offshore. It makes sense that these local costs have likely dropped to a rate that it's actually sustainable.

We don't peer with Telecom (though our upstreams do) as we've got little traffic going into their network...so haven't investigated pricing directly with them.

That said, I've heard the rate we pay for international is presently cheaper than what another provider pays for Telecom transit.