Can someone help me understand Transit vs Peering vs Customer in port descriptions?

I have a Cisco switch at the edge of the network in our data center. It has two links each to two different ISPs.
If I use:
interface G1/0/1
desc Cust: Verizon (link 1)
interface G2/0/1
desc Cust: Verison (link 2)
interface G1/0/2
desc Cust: ATT (link 1)
interface G2/0/2
desc Cust: ATT (link 2)

Then when it does graphs it gives me composite graphs for each of the ISPs.

If I use “Transit” in the descriptions, it sums up all 4 interfaces.

Peering seems to work like Transit.

What should I be using? ATT & Verizon are not customers, they are ISPs. But Customers sums them the way I want. What controls whether there are subtotals or only totals?


If they are providing you transit then I’d label them as transit.

The peering and transit pages still provide you with a graph per link and the overall consolidated graph.

These are links to our ISPs. Both are setup with redundancy (one has diversity). The goal is to control the view so that we see it as:

Verizon summed traffic graph
Verizon link 1 traffic graph
Verizon link 2 traffic graph

ATT summed traffic graph
ATT link 1 traffic graph
ATT link 2 traffic graph

That is what we see when I call them customer interfaces.

If I call them peering or transit the summed graph combines ATT with Verizon. I don’t want that.

It seems that the summation mechanism choice is magic. I have no real control.

What should I call an ISP? Are they a customer (obviously no)? But if choose anything else they are summed incorrectly.

How can I control the summation mechanism?


I’m not following you. I created two ports, both called Transit, one named Cogent, the other Level3. I can see the summary of both together and the individual ones under the ‘Transit’ link in the ports menu

A full table connection would be transit.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.