1 / 17

Internet Exchanges: how hard can it be to build a resilient infrastructure in a small country ?

Riga , Latvia April 19 , 2013. Internet Exchanges: how hard can it be to build a resilient infrastructure in a small country ?. Uģis Bērziņš, CCIE #8972 Emeritus Chairman of The Board Santa Monica Networks. IXP History in Latvia. Internet Exchanges in Latvia.

shina
Télécharger la présentation

Internet Exchanges: how hard can it be to build a resilient infrastructure in a small country ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Riga, Latvia April 19, 2013 Internet Exchanges:how hard can it be to build a resilient infrastructure ina small country? Uģis Bērziņš, CCIE #8972 Emeritus Chairman of The Board Santa Monica Networks

  2. IXP HistoryinLatvia

  3. Internet ExchangesinLatvia • GIX – LATNET / LU MII, Raiņablvd. 29 (1992/1993) • Natural peering with AS2588 • RIX – BKC, Pērses 2 (1997) • Separate L2 switch, 100 Mbps Fiber, no Route server • LIX (v1) – cooperation of 4 ISPs: Latnet, Lattelecom, Microlink, TeliaLatvia (2003) • Four L2 switches, 1 Gbps, no dedicated Route Server • SMILE1 – Santa Monica Networks – non-ISP ownership (2005) • Two L3 switches, Nx1Gbps, AS39626, Switch = Route Server • LIX (v2) – cooperation of 3 ISPs: Latnet, Lattelecom, Telia Latvia (2008?) • Three L3 switches, the same design as SMILE1, 10G Core • SMILE2 – Santa Monica Networks (2010-2013) • Two L2 switches, AS39626, Two Route Server, Design similar to DE-CIX

  4. Fromsimplethings To complex… andback

  5. LIX (v1)LessonsLearned

  6. LIX (v1) Topology GE GE GE X X Layer 2 STP BPDU Filteronedge

  7. LIX (v1) Developments During lifetime there was increase ofCorelink bandwidth by using link aggregation Layer 2 loop prevention – STP did not help No Route Server(s) – any to any eBGP No single point of contact Restriction based on polytical rather than technical conditions Platform growth potential limited Frequent service stability issues with Link Aggregationand L2 Loops Issues

  8. SMILE1LessonsLearned

  9. SMILE1 Topology Layer 3 No STP needed Switch = Route Server

  10. SMILE1 Developments Targets set: High Availability and Flexibility No political restrictions Better use of line capacity Totally different approach than LIX Stability of service was superior – one unplanned downtime of a single node during major power supply disaster Use of BGP Communities Performance – Platform limited to Nx1G Routing Flexibility: eBGP Peering directly with SMILE switch SMILE switch selects best path – limited possibilties by SMILE customers to influence routing decision Issues

  11. LIX (v2) response

  12. LIX (v2) Topology Layer 3 No STP needed Switch = Route Server

  13. SMILE2

  14. SMILE2 Topology MED transparency AS Path transparency

  15. SMILE2 Developments Targets set: Go for 10G High Availability and Flexibility No political restrictions Better use of line capacity Return to well proven DE-CIX model (L2) Route Servers, BGP Communities Customers fully control routing decision Direct peerings between major players Major players acquire small ISPs Going commercial Issues

  16. Toolscanbedifferent

More Related