LU-CIX General Assembly Day

Remote Peering – A Shift in Internet Architecture

Ruth Plater, Head of Marketing

25 July 2013, Luxembourg

Agenda

ü  Who is IX Reach?

ü  Peering Vs. Transit

ü  Traditional Peering Model

ü  Challenges to this Model

ü  Remote Peering Model and it’s Impact

ü  International Vs. Local

ü  The Reaction of Internet Exchange Points

ü  Conclusions

Who is IX Reach?

ü  Global Layer 2 Ethernet and MPLS network

ü  30 Major global cities (and growing)

ü  20 Internet Exchanges in Europe and the US

ü  75+ data centres on-net

ü  Network connectivity and colocation solutions providers

ü  Global leaders in remote peering

Peering Vs. Transit

Peering

ü  Settlement-free interconnection between two networks

ü  Cost efficient

ü  Traffic optimisation and low latency

ü  Scalability and redundancy

ü  Improved end-user experience – closer to the eyeballs

ü  Community and marketing

Transit

ü  Connecting smaller ISPs, for a fee, to the larger Internet

ü  Historically more expensive

ü  No control over routes

Traditional Peering Model

Source: Re-Designed from Dr. Peering

Challenges to this Model

ü  Fixed costs (ports, colocation, routers)

ü  Faster decline in Transit costs, with no end in sight

Remote Peering Model

Source: Re-Designed from Dr. Peering

How does Remote Peering Help?

ü  Further cost reductions:

ü  No colocation or hardware infrastructure at each IX required

ü  No deployment/install fees

ü  Bundled transport and connections at the Exchanges

ü  Lower operational costs – customers only pay for the CDR they need

ü  Reduction in upstream costs and reliance on multiple transit connections

ü  Paperwork is vastly reduced for the IXPs

ü  Single point of contact for legal, technical and billing for the customer

ü  Turning up peering is a lot faster

Peering is therefore more accessible to smaller/medium sized networks and

developing markets.

More to Consider: International Vs. Local

ü  We used to say “peering keeps traffic local”

ü  Remote peering promotes international traffic exchange

ü  But it makes less sense over longer distances

ü  Content providers want to be closer to the eye-balls

ü  As a result more of a business case for local IXPs to be built

ü  Network operators in developing markets connecting “locally” with each other in

remote locations

ü  Higher adoption of remote peering to cut costs and headaches

Reaction of IXPs to this Shift

ü  Larger IXPs with critical mass are less at risk than smaller IXs without critical

ü  IXPs are behaving more and more like networks:

ü  Expanding geographically (both domestically and internationally) - becoming

multi-site IXPs

ü  Larger IXs are expanding into new global markets (UAE-IX powered by DE-

CIX)

ü  Small IXs are expanding regionally and offering remote peering to bigger IXs

ü  Some have their own partial networks and offer connectivity

It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between international and local

peering, and Networks and Internet Exchanges.

LU-CIX: Central European Peering Hub

LU-CIX: Central European Peering Hub

Conclusions

ü  Transit costs continue to fall and there’s no end in sight

ü  Peering is still valuable for a network and operators normally use (or at least

consider) a blend of peering direct, remote peering AND transit

ü  Remote peering reduces the costs of peering further

ü  However, this makes less sense over longer distances

ü  Remote peering is a great way to get closer to eyeballs

ü  The roles of networks and IXPs will change in the future – it’s already happening!

ü  Developing markets will play a vital part in this shift

A Message from our HQ in London