Mike alludes to something here that is not often discussed.
It can be argued that some conditions exists where a traditional backbone
provider gets an economic value from peering, especially with large broadband
providers. A broadband provider who takes a hell no, I won't buy attitude
with a
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
Mike alludes to something here that is not often discussed.
I thought this was discussed quite regularly round here and is well known?
It can be argued that some conditions exists where a traditional backbone
provider gets an economic value from
Perhaps broadband in the UK is different than in the US, but I can tell you
peering around the legacy networks has made a huge difference at the
network I peerlead for. Customers are getting smart and have come to
discover 'Tier 1' is an empty status. Networks evolve and traffic
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:51:43AM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
It also seems to me that tier 1s that try to get revenue from hosting
and data centers ends up shooting themselves in the foot when they
refuse to peer with broadband providers. They get paid by people who
want good
At 10:28 AM 6/29/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not
survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And
some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of
many countries. :-)
RAS Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:19:07 -0400
RAS From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS Think about it from the large tier 1's perspective. Lets say
RAS you are Joe Sixpack ISP, and they peer with you in one
RAS location. They now have to haul your traffic to and from
RAS this one location, wasting
: when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
: has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not
: been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not
: stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers.
Stephen,
I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering
with the downstreams will improve user quality of service by
both reducing latency and taking unnecessary points of failure
out of the network.
Is it really common sense? If so, is the common sense correct?
In fact,
Regarding Pauls' excellent comment.
During the buildout phase 1995 - 1999 I understand very well the
reasons for no regulation of interconnection.
Successful growth was happening too fast for the Fed's to second
guess by regulating interconnect the process of which would slow the
build out
Preaching to the ministers here:
I would like to see more data. I don't think a network with large
aggregates (some who can not peer with tier 1s due to current
policies) has much impact on the global routing structure.
The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping
on and
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
Flat designs tend to ring like a bell when instability is introduced.
I think we held the world record for flapping at NAP.NET in 95-96.
That was a flat design executed during a time when the Cisco architecture
and software
That makes sense ... many full routing tables is fare worse than
many partial routing tables. If my last resort was buying from a
Tier 1 after peering out most of my traffic I would prefer paid
peering or partial transit. ... and one can always not listen to
routes that have multiple non
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
[snip]
The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping
on and off magnified by multihoming punching holes in large aggregates.
Small announcement show more churn because they are more granular.
They expand
Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to
ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam,
dmca, etc)? I know there are many groups for people who want to complain
about those subjects, but I was wondering if there are groups for people
who
At 09:16 PM 6/29/2002 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
Sorry for interrupting our quarterly peering debate, but I'd like to
ask if there are any groups for people who are Postmasters (abuse, spam,
dmca, etc)? I know there are many groups for people who want to complain
about those subjects, but I
Does Bellsouth use its own infrastructure for consumer/business ADSL
(specifically in Chattanooga, TN), or does it rely on someone else's lines
to get from the local central office to the nearest peering exchange? I've
seen outfits like Covad use Exodus/CW, but I'm imagining a RBOC like
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Martin Hannigan wrote:
There's a lot of them. A bunch are under cover.
I'm aware of most of the public and semi-public spam/abuse lists. But
it is difficult for front-line abuse folks at large ISPs to exchange
tips in a public forum. I was hoping there was something
17 matches
Mail list logo
