TransitRail: National Commercial Peering Exchange Program
TransitRail: National Commodity Peering Program May 16, 2006 Quilt Minneapolis Copyright 2006 CENIC and PN WGP 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 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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP
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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP 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. Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP CENIC Experience 9000 Commodity only - no R&E 8000 7000 6000 Peering Volume Transit Volume Aggregate
Linear (Aggregate) Linear (Peering Volume) 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 4 4 5
5 6 6 7 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 4 4 5 5 6 6
7 -0 r-0 y-0 l-0 p-0 v-0 n-0 r-0 y-0 l-0 p-0 v-0 n-0 r-0 y-0 l-0 p-0 v-0 n-0 r-0 y-0 n a a a a u u u a a a a o o o
e e e J J J Ja M M Ja M M Ja M M Ja M M S S S N N N
Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP 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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP 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. 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 * 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 Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP Phase 0: Front Range Gigapop & CalREN
Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP Phase 0: Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center & CalREN 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: Whats 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 7600s) 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 Phase1 Trial NLR FrameNet 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 6Gbps 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 8th 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 (1GE, 10GE)? Measured service? Copyright 2006 CENIC and PNWGP Routing Policies What TransitRail 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 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) 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
An Approach to Calculate Customer Lifetime Value. Team Mathletes: Luo Wang, Xiaoyi Yang, Tae Park, Junyi Yang. Agenda. Introduce Customer Lifetime Value. ... The drawback of Embedded Value (EV) model. Definition . Importance. Beyond traditional factors. Birth Order. Definition.
Higher Education Achievement Report. University led programme. Section 6.1 - Extra-curricular activity. www.gradintel.com. HEAR. The HEAR (Higher Education Achievement Report) is a University-verified, electronic document which records broader achievements in addition to programme and module details and results.
Ovary wall ruptures and expels the secondary oocyte with its corona radiata. Mittelschmerz: twinge of pain sometimes felt at ovulation. 1-2% of ovulations release more than one secondary oocyte, which, if fertilized, results in fraternal twins
Understand how the OT process fits within the existing housing adaptations process. Promote the role of OT in the Housing Team. Understand the role of OT in the design and construction process. What the team were wanting to achieve.
Compare local mosquito population to a susceptible and a resistant strain of the same species Insecticide susceptibility status of mosquito populations tested using the CDC Bottle Bioassay is defined by this algorithm:
Instruments or voices? Where? For What Purpose? Form of composition? Music Genres: symphony, mass, concerto, opera, oratorio Melody: musical ideas, themes, motifs Dance Popular? Ballet? Modern? Relation between dance and music? Mimetic? Movements compose a whole?
Gap Analysis. FITSP-AModule 4. RMF steps and associated tasks can be applied to both new development and legacy information systems. For legacy systems, organizations can use RMF Steps 1 through 3 to confirm that the security categorization has been completed...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!