Gordon Cook wrote:
> I don't post here much
Any chance of changing that? After listening to endless banter from
Ralph Doncaster, I'd welcome of your latest interview with Bill St.
Arnaud and Wade Hong on CANET*3.1415927. Pretty please with a plastic
figurine of the delectable Ms. Jane on to
I don't post here much but since i have been asked a direct
question i will give an answer and a factoid or two and ask a
question or two of my own
>Perhaps we need NANOG-OldFarts mailing list?
yes -says one old fart
how about a list with a charter of discussing industry changes t
Perhaps we need NANOG-OldFarts mailing list?
>> I think this is putting the cart before the horse.
>>
>> We were getting upgraded bandwidth capabilities,
>> fiber put in the ground, etc from traditional Telcos
>> prior to the rise of the Internet; they were finding cheaper
>> ways to run phone
On Tue, 02 Jul 2002 16:13:46 CDT, Richard Irving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> This crossed my desk, thought someone might find it
> relevant.. (I am not sure who wrote it... ;)
> router> conf t
> #
> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:28:04 -0600
Credit where it's due:
http://www.satirewire.com/n
This crossed my desk, thought someone might find it
relevant.. (I am not sure who wrote it... ;)
router> conf t
#
On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 17:53, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> > What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
> > difficulties we have seen?
> >
> > The problems have been caused by:
> >
> > - Bad business models
> > - Greed
> > - Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary
> > If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
> > depreciation) comes to $400 per mbit/sec and via a promisig local ISP you
> > can get transit to UUNET at $200 per mbit/sec, your costs will decrease.
> > Just because the IP is free with peering does not mean that it costs
>
> I think this is putting the cart before the horse.
>
> We were getting upgraded bandwidth capabilities,
> fiber put in the ground, etc from traditional Telcos
> prior to the rise of the Internet; they were finding cheaper
> ways to run phone service around.
This is totally incorrect. Ask a
> NYIIX 1/4 rack + 100M switch connection - <$1K/mth
> fiber cx for Gig-E to high-bandwidth peers: $0/mth
> small GSR12000 - $20K from the local bankruptcy trustee
> OC192 from Manhattan to Vienna, VA: $10K/mth
> SIX is also quite inexpensive.
> I've been told Equinix can be talked down from ~$3K
> > NYIIX 1/4 rack + 100M switch connection - <$1K/mth
> > fiber cx for Gig-E to high-bandwidth peers: $0/mth
> > small GSR12000 - $20K from the local bankruptcy trustee
> > OC192 from Manhattan to Vienna, VA: $10K/mth
> > SIX is also quite inexpensive.
> > I've been told Equinix can be talked do
The original comment I made was regarding the amount of traffic people suggest
they have on their networks.
I know UU, L3, Sprint, Verio etc will carry many gigabits but it was concerning
the average list member rather than the exceptional major player...
Answers so far vary..
Steve
On 2 Jul
On Tue, 2002-07-02 at 02:00, Grant A. Kirkwood wrote:
>
> At 09:54 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> >My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
> >Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
>
> This also assumes US citizens don't sleep.
and that non-US citizens never send
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:03:45PM -0500, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
>
> Several estimates floating around (*) suggest between 60 and 100 PB
> (petabytes) per month of US backbone traffic, which works out to 180 and
> 300 Gb/s average traffic.
Oh I should also point out that I was guessing as to tra
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> It's all so much posturing, just like the people who claim they need OC768
> now or any time in the near future, or the people who sell 1Mbps customers
> on the fact that their OC192 links are impor
At 04:33 PM 7/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> > costs and make money.
>
>this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
>rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
>match. kinda like
EBD> Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per
EBD> US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo
EBD> transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level.
off-list> My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
off-list> Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
T
At 09:54 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
>Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
This also assumes US citizens don't sleep.
--
Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org
Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4A
My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
E.B. Dreger
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:11:15PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> > Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> > just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> > $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for t
RAS> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting
RAS> the traffic only once through the system) going through the
RAS> US backbones I'd be very surprised.
Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
"dropping OC48 to IXs".
Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be
switching many gigs of data per second and yet wher
DJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:10:44 -0400
DJ> From: Deepak Jain
[ snipping throughout ]
DJ> [Y]ou are running over mileage based pipes.
Exactly. And ingress:egress is meant as an attempt to address
the issue, is it not? If traffic flows are "close enough" to
equal in both directions, everyon
> Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the router,
> plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthly costs for y
>>> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
>>> costs and make money.
>> this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
>> rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
>> match. kinda like a bunch of old men drinking poison to see
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:47:36AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
> "dropping OC48 to IXs".
>
> Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be
> switching many gigs of data per second and yet where
m: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
E.B. Dreger
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
DJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:58:10 -0400
DJ> From: Deepak Jain
DJ> You achieve price symmetry when push/pull ratios
.
--jeff
- Original Message -
From: "Gordon Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Paul Vixie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:14 PM
Subject: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering
policy
>
&g
dium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is
> nothing.
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Miquel van Smoorenburg
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
> To: [EMAI
> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> costs and make money.
this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
match. kinda like a bunch of old men drinking poison to see who
dies fir
.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Miquel van Smoorenburg
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
In article
,
Phil Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Apples an
ROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Richard Irving
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 6:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> I don't see that either.
>
> Whether you do hot potato or cold potato routing, one
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> costs and make money. So the question becomes, is $50/meg too low.
> I believe so. I think that the companies selling at $50 a meg are
> in a desperate attempt to get revenue in the d
expect
networks to bear the burden of carrying their -own- packets,
across their -own- fabric for their -=own=- customers,
now wouldn't we ?
We need to break the cycle of pain.
> Regards,
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTE
In a message written on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:51:58PM -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
> that to just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as
> low as $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the
> router, plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthl
>From: dre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>You might be able to sit in a colo and buy some cheap transit from one
>provider (especially if the colo isn't carrier neutral). However, if you
>want diversity in your upstreams, peering quickly becomes a reality.
If you have to buy an OC48 (or dark fiber) f
> Agreed completely.
> BUT, your logic is very much "perfect world". There are a quite few
> reasons why this doesn't work "in the real world", same as communism
> works great in theory, but not in the real world.
actually, i'd argue that communism's theoretical basis has been roughed up
over th
DJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:58:10 -0400
DJ> From: Deepak Jain
DJ> You achieve price symmetry when push/pull ratios match or
DJ> approach each other because the amount of bits x distance for
DJ> each party is more equal. This is what many tier-1's would
DJ> consider an equal peering relationsh
27;s would consider an equal peering relationship.
Regards,
Deepak Jain
AiNET
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Phil Rosenthal
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
---
If they
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this would most
>likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It would either
>have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In this
>method, if the
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:22:25 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
>But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
>they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
>no?
>
>--Phil
Obviously any business would like to get the highest possible price f
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:51:58PM -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>
> But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary
> beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for
> peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peering was a great cost savines.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I don't think "peering could not overcome corrupt financial officers and
> $3B in debt" equates to "peering has no relation to financial
> difficulties" exactly.
>
> Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:13:42PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> That's my definition of "Tier 1", in case you hadn't guessed.
Then what are you "venturing to guess"?
> You are saying that Wcom doesn't peer enough to remain financially
> viable?
I don't think Worldcom's peering has anythin
---
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their current peers.
I think you missed the definition of "ti
PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Miquel van Smoorenburg
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
In article
,
Phil Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just d
>From: Clayton Fiske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit.
But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary
beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for
peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peer
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their
In article
,
Phil Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely
>not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain
>absolutely nothing from it
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:15:16PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> #1 Do you honestly believe that you wont run into any customers who will
> say "why should I buy from abovenet if I can peer with them? They will
> take a big percentage of my traffic and do it for free."
So the question for A
---
If they peer, the traffic ratio will _NOT_ be 1:1, more like 10:1 or
1:10 [depending on which way you are looking].
---
It will not be a 1:1 push pull ratio, BUT it will be 1:1 in a "expensive
part of ISP1:expensive part of ISP2" ratio...
--Phil
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 12:06:18PM -0700, Clayton Fiske wrote:
>
> Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit. This may hold
> true to some degree for a small-ish network, but probably not for a
> larger one. Even factoring in depreciation, line cards, etc, I would
> imagine you won'
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>
> >Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> >Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
> >party X feels that party Y is gaini
Deepak Jain wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Richard Irving
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
> To: Daniel Golding
> Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
>
>
---
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their current peers.
Reduced latency? Shorter hop counts? (
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:01:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
> To put this another way, imagine two networks. One is a large
> content provider, they target webhosting customers. One is a large
> access provider, they target end-users. I think that being able to reach
> a lar
Paul Vixie wrote:
---
i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to
grow a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our
industry, a lot of deals are done which only make money for the
investment bankers and don't actually "grow business". closed pee
At 03:01 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>>[deleted]
>>
>>the second network. If they peer, their traffic ratio will be
>>1:1 yet both networks gain significant ( imho ) benefit. Bill and keep
>>seems the only sensible way to me.
>
>---
>
>If they peer, the traffic ratio will _NOT_ be 1:1
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:36:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> > operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
>
> If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
> depreciation)
>> i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to grow
>> a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our industry,
>> a lot of deals are done which only make money for the investment bankers and
>> don't actually "grow business". closed peering is al
The reason we have this industry alive is investment bankers. Had we not had
it, there would not have been abundance of fiber, abundance of competition
and easy accessibility of IP. Like it or not, without these games we would
have still though of a T1 as of a huge pipe.
True, and without
[deleted]
To put this another way, imagine two networks. One is a large
content provider, they target webhosting customers. One is a large
access provider, they target end-users. I think that being able to reach
a large number of end-users is a benefit to the first network. I also
think that
Paul A Flores wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > >
> > >Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you think they would if they could? :)
>
> Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> Y feel like they are getting ripped, they w
At 02:15 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>>From: Paul A Flores <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. Th
> Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
depreciation) comes to $400 per mbit/sec and via a promisig local ISP you
can get transit to U
>From: Paul A Flores <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_
>would buy off on that, would be to ha
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their
> i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to grow
> a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our industry,
> a lot of deals are done which only make money for the investment bankers and
> don't actually "grow business". closed peering is all abo
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
>Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
>party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they
>are, X mi
> What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
> difficulties we have seen?
>
> The problems have been caused by:
>
> - Bad business models
> - Greed
> - Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities to
> the stockholders
>
> If you can somehow
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Deepak Jain said:
>
> Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering
> or the Internet business?
The thing to fear is what's already happening; the fallen are
being bought by Monopoly-plAyers, anxious to get Back to w
: RE: Sprint peering policy
What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
difficulties we have seen?
The problems have been caused by:
- Bad business models
- Greed
- Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities
to the stockholders
If you can
12:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mike Leber
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Richard Irving
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Daniel Golding
Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> A vague sense of unfairn
TED]
> Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
>
>
>
> Daniel Golding wrote:
> >
> > A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons to
> > regulate an industry.
> >
> > - Daniel Golding
>
> How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded
> fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
>
Air Travel: Limited resources (gates), public safety issues, public
infrastructure used (ATC system).
Commercial Fishing: Limited resources, environmental issues
Conventional Telco: Pre-existing monopoly using what was essentially public
ifrastructure. Same goes for Cable TV.
How do IP networks
Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons to
> regulate an industry.
>
> - Daniel Golding
How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded
fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
> On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
> >
> >Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when
> considered by
> >>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or
> geographical coverage.
> >
> >A good proxy for the above is to a
> >If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X
> >and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal
> >value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually
> >balks.
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y
William,
It would be quite surprising if an informational RFC changed anyone's
peering policy or opinions on peering. Peering is as much or more so, a
function of business and business relationships, rather than simply a
technical method of accomplishing interconnection. Networks peer when they
Because it works - the Internet, that is. If peering were broken, the
Internet would not function in any sort of reasonable manner. However, it is
functioning quite nicely today, even with a huge amount of finacial chaos.
Why mess with something that actually works properly? And if you are going
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
>>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
>
>A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
>
"Mitchell, Dan" wrote:
> Plan on seeing an SLA of 99.999%
Better-than-PSTN reliability, coming soon to an ALGX salesrep near you!
What next, Dan, 6 9's?
Rizzo, Frank
Paul Vixie wrote:
> knowing that the
> pain can be transformed from "can't exchange traffic" pain into "must
> pay money" pain tends to reinforce this perception.
Imagine that. :\
> when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
> has always resulted. even when th
> 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.
Some g
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 expa
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 optim
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 softwar
> > ... A broadband provider who takes a "hell no, I won't buy" attitude
> > with a large tier 1 can drive Gigabits of traffic away from the tier
> > 1's revenue stream by peering around that provider and directing
> > traffic down paths that avoid the tier 1.
>
> "Peering around" only works if
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 off
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 05:56:35PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> This assumes as per a previous point that they exchange routes outside the
> region.
I'll give you this, as I said I was playing devils advocate. I fully agree
with the concept of regionalized exchanging for small players.
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Let me play devils advocate for a moment:
ooh danger ;)
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 10:28:17AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering with the
> > downstreams will improve user qua
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 f
> : 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.
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
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 countrie
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 conne
Let me play devils advocate for a moment:
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 12:04:23AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Give example of other industry where such goverment intervention happened
> and has helped that industry? And what goverment exactly are we talking
> about - US Goverment? France G
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
sources/des
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 fr
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
> >Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
> >
> >1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially :
> >one belonging to the same societal group espec
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
