Transit Rail National Commodity Peering Program May 16

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

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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Transit. Rail 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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Transit. Rail Goal: create a network presence and infrastructure that will attract and retain Tier. One type peering to the benefit of the R&E community Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

What to Expect Transit. Rail participants are likely to experience anywhere from a 25% to 60+% reduction in the overall traffic that normally goes over their commodity ISP circuits. Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

CENIC Experience Commodity only - no R&E Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Transit. Rail 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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Who • CENIC and Pacific Northwest Gigapop are jointly proposing, developing, and implementing the Transit. Rail 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. Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

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) Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase 0 Connectivity * Abovenet * Accretive Networks * Adelphia Cable * All. Stream * Akamai * Asia. Net. Com * BBC * Blackoak * Bungi * Cable. Com * China Telecom * Cogent * Cox Cable * Da. Com * DSLnet * Earthlink * EBay * Electric Lightwave * Electronics Arts * Epoch * FLAG Telecom * Global Naps * Globix * Google * GT Telecom/360 Networks * Hanaro Telecom * Hop. One * Hurricane Electric * IIJ * Inet Main Street * Internet Software Consortium * Japan Telecom * Jupiter Hosting * KDDI * Korea Telecom * Limelight * Maxim * Microsoft Corporation * My. Space * Mzima * n. Layer * Nokia * Packet Clearing House * Peer 1 Networks * Powered. Com * Primus Telecom * RCN * Reach Networks * Serve. Path * Shaw Communications * Sing. Tel * Sony Entertainment * Speakeasy * Sun. Rise Telecom * Swisscom-IP+ * TDS Telecom * Time Warner Telecom * Telecom Malaysia * TTNet * Ultra. DNS * Via. Net * WV Fiber * XMission * XO Communications * Yahoo! * Zocalo Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase 0: Front Range Gigapop & Cal. REN Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase 0: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center & Cal. REN Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase 0: PNWGP Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase 0: Aggregate at CENIC Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Infrastructure • Equipment (CISCO 7600 s) • Links (NLR Framenet), loops to exchange points • New autonomous system • Restrictive peering policy to maximize return Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Seattle (Westin Bldg) Equinix DC Chicago Equinix Ashburn Sunnyvale PAIX Phase 1 Trial NLR Frame. Net Backbone Los Angeles (Equinix LAP) Equinix LAX 1 Wilshire Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

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 6 Gbps – We think it would be nice if we didn't break NLR • Additional participation in Phase 2 actively being sought Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Phase “Infinity and Beyond” • Add NYC, Atlanta, Dallas, …other? • Facilitate a standard connection & delivery system Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Equinix New York 25 B'way Seattle (Westin Bldg) 111 8 th Chicago DC Equinix Ashburn Sunnyvale PAIX Atlanta Equinix SJ (future? ) Atlanta IX/PAIX Dallas Los Angeles (Equinix LAP) Equinix LAX 1 Wilshire Equinix Phase 2 Conceptual Diagram Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Cost Model • Cost Model: cost to end organizations should be less than Quilt-based CIS pricing • Many cost model questions – Fixed cost per connection (1 GE, 10 GE)? – Measured service? Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Routing Policies • What Transit. Rail requires of its peers – 3 -5 locations throughout US – Large amount of traffic exchanged per peer – Reliable Operations Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Routing Policies • What Transit. Rail requires of its peering participants – Structured local preference – Maintained IRR object – Willingness to tune announcements to L 3/Wiltel/C&W (to attain highest amount of usage) Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Business Side • Peering solicitations, agreements • NOC support • Infrastructure upgrades Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP

Q&A Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP