Re: Sprint peering policy
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 top? Finally I'd like to ask a question in return. I am trying to look at what will grow up on the ashes of the current industry collapse. Larger large players, more basement web hosters. Fiber to the home is beginning to appear in a few isolated areas. It will disappear just as quickly. Has, in some places. A few years back, VC's were wooed by the concept. They didn't know what the heck it was, nor did they care, so long as those pitching it (who knew even less about it, for the most part) kept dropping buzzards such as broadband and fiber over and over. Now's the wake-up call. It just isn't cost-effective, which might explain why every company offering FTTH services in the States is either f'd, soon-to-be f'd, or abandoned the plans in favor of something more viable like cable. Whatever happened to WINfirst? Are there folk with adequate routes and connectivity that would undertake to form a network that might be independent of the current internet core back bone of what (112,000 routes?) on top of which sit the half dozen or so Tier one players that peer primarily with each other and demand transit $$$ from everyone else? Web and email stay on the legacy backbone...new services migrate to a backbone with a cost structure unencumbered by the tier one oligopolists? No. PS. Anyone interested in trekking in Nepal in October please let me know off list. eg http://cookreport.com/everest.shtm When? I'm handnig out summaries of the Cook Report at the Princeton-Harvard game on the 26th. Then it's off to Shanghai to crash the ICANN meeting. Then Eugene to lobby for macro-allocations and true financial disclosure/accountability at the ARIN conference. Beginning of the month works best. I've been benching 300 and tracing Broadwing cross-country fiber routes by foot in preparation, hopefully you'll be able to keep up! Have any other internet luminaries expressed an interest in going? Frank Proud to be an American Rizzo PS: I had a bet with my boss: how many of you are watching fireworks tonight? Mail me privately and I'll post a summary to the list.
RE: Sprint peering policy
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 traffic through the US or send traffic to/from servers in the US. Given that traffic from Europe to Asia almost always goes via the US, and given that it isn't unheard of for traffic between major European ASs to go via the US (e.g. 702 and 9057 right now) then the former assumption is clearly untrue. I think the fact that I'm sending this invalidates the second one? Giles -- Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED -- = Giles HeronPrincipal Network ArchitectPacketExchange Ltd. ph: +44 7880 506185 if you build it they will yawn =
RE: Sprint peering policy
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 2002, Giles Heron wrote: 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 traffic through the US or send traffic to/from servers in the US. Given that traffic from Europe to Asia almost always goes via the US, and given that it isn't unheard of for traffic between major European ASs to go via the US (e.g. 702 and 9057 right now) then the former assumption is clearly untrue. I think the fact that I'm sending this invalidates the second one? Giles -- Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4AED
Re: True cost of peering (was Re: Sprint peering policy)
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/mth for a rack/power a couple cx to $1500/mth. The following problems exist with your plan: * 10Gbps circuit to a 100Mbps peering point... Are you sure your name isn't Nick Catalano? With $0/mth cx fees from telehouse, it only makes sense to use the NYIIX switch for low-bandwidth peers, and do a private interconnect with the rest. * What peers do you plan to find at NYIIX that you'll be doing Gbps to? 6461, 4323, 4513 would be good candidates. * OC192 interfaces don't grow on trees (or even ebay yet) Yeah, right now the best price point is for OC48 - I've seen used OC48 linecards for $2K. This time next year I expect to start seeing OC192 cards on the used market. * Two peering points on the east coast won't get you squat Yeah, the point was to show just how cheap things are now. Adding Chicago, Seattle, Pao Alto should be enough to satisfy peering requirements for 75% of your traffic. * Crosscountry circuits are just a tiny bit more expensive Depending how you buy them - buying the backbone assets of a defunct carrier that has a bunch of OC48 192 lambda IRUs with 15+ years left on them should work out quite cheap amortized over the remaining IRU term. Next up on the auction block... Teleglobe. -Ralph
Re: True cost of peering (was Re: Sprint peering policy)
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/mth for a rack/power a couple cx to $1500/mth. 2 years ago you couldn't build a coast-to-coast backbone and get peering costs $50/mbit. Now my rough calculations put it at ~$20/mbit if you do it on the cheap. D-e-p-r-i-c-i-a-t-i-o-n. S-a-l-a-r-i-e-s. Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 anyone who had been in this business from the beginning of nineties, not late nineties. Telcos, while upgrading their systems, happily pointed at the PUC filings and sold you DS1 that went two blocks for $700 per month, that being inside a city. The rise of the Internet as a telecom bandwidth demand driver attracted the attention of investment bankers and capital, which then became somewhat of a set of complex feedback loops (capital going into all sorts of internet industries, infrastructure, etc, partly because it appeared to be good business and partly because of hype). The result was that speculation and hype drove overcapacity. This again is incorrect. The rise of content attracted investment bankers. Before anyone had invested serious money in any of the internet infrastructure companies, people were building out 10 megabit, T3 backbones and were talking to telco gear providers about what it would take to do 155 megabit and 622 megabit backbones and so on and so on. This is again incorrect. The people that you are talking about were UUNET and MCI, and we are talking 1994. It was clear to those of us in the late 80s and early 90s that if demand kept pulling, we needed to keep creating bandwidth. There had not been demand in 80. Neither had there been demand in the beginning of 1990s. But in no way can you claim that it took a terabuck in capital push to make it happen. Demand pull was fully operational and working just fine before ISPs started being snapped up by phone companies and visa versa, and the huge money came into play. Yes I can. It did take terrabucks to get this industry rolling. Hype might have been lower and growth somewhat slower, but I can easily see the set of people who were building out backbones with T-1s and the early fiber links having grown them up to networks capable of today's traffic. Are you talking about Net99 here? Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 $0 to peer. Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit. Really? I did not know that the quotes that I get do not say that they give me a free router and $0 install cost. 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't find OC3 transit in 4 cities from any ISP to be as cheap as OC3 peering in 4 cities, for example. Add to that the chance that, as a larger network, you'll probably be getting your pipes at volume discounts. I can from the top of my head, without breaking NDA name at least 1 promising local ISP. I never meant to imply that peering is 0-cost. I just don't agree with the blanket statement that peering (or lack thereof) has no financial impact. Peering networks, at this time, have very significant downside effect to fiancials that I can see, unless you are talking about UUNET, Sprint, ATT, Level3, Q and CW. Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 responsibilities to the stockholders If you can somehow tie peering into this, please be my guest, but it would be a bit of a stretch. you've asked and answered your own question, though. remember, wcom tried to buy sprint and it was only the EU's antitrust folks who stopped them. And I like to think that my demonstration of the insane paths that packets travelled to Wcom, which I made to the anti-trust tribunal at the time, helped to get that purchase stopped.
Re: Sprint peering policy
This crossed my desk, thought someone might find it relevant.. (I am not sure who wrote it... ;) router conf t # REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:28:04 -0600 REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT Band of Roving Chief Executives Spotted Miles from Mexican Border San Antonio, Texas(Reuters) - Unwilling to wait for their eventual indictments, the 10,000 remaining CEOs of public U.S. companies made a break for it yesterday, heading for the Mexican border, plundering towns and villages along the way, and writing the entire rampage off as a marketing expense. They came into my home, made me pay for my own TV, then double-booked the revenues, said Rachel Sanchez of Las Cruces, just north of El Paso. Right in front of my daughters. Calling themselves the CEOnistas, the chief executives were first spotted last night along the Rio Grande River near Quemado, where they bought each of the town's 320 residents by borrowing against pension fund gains. By late this morning, the CEOnistas had arbitrarily inflated Quemado's population to 960, and declared a 200 percent profit for the fiscal second quarter. This morning, the outlaws bought the city of Waco, transferred its underperforming areas to a private partnership, and sent a bill to California for $4.5 billion. Law enforcement officials and disgruntled shareholders riding posse were noticeably frustrated. First of all, they're very hard to find because they always stand behind their numbers, and the numbers keep shifting, said posse spokesman Dean Lewitt. And every time we yell 'Stop in the name of the shareholders!', they refer us to investor relations. I've been on the phone all damn morning. YOU'LL NEVER AUDIT ME ALIVE! they scream. The pursuers said they have had some success, however, by preying on a common executive weakness. Last night we caught about 24 of them by disguising one of our female officers as a CNBC anchor, said U.S. Border Patrol spokesperson Janet Lewis. It was like moths to a flame. Also, teams of agents have been using high-powered listening devices to scan the plains for telltale sounds of the CEOnistas. Most of the time we just hear leaves rustling or cattle flicking their tails, said Lewis, but occasionally we'll pick up someone saying, 'I was totally out of the loop on that. Among former and current CEOs apprehended with this method were Computer Associates' Sanjay Kumar, Adelphia's John Rigas, Enron's Ken Lay, Joseph Nacchio of Qwest, Joseph Berardino of Arthur Andersen, and -=every=- Global Crossing CEO since 1997. ImClone Systems' Sam Waksal and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco were not allowed to join the CEOnistas as they have already been indicted. So far, about 50 chief executives have been captured, including Martha Stewart, who was detained south of El Paso where she had cut through a barbed-wire fence at the Zaragosa border crossing off Highway 375. She would have gotten away, but she was stopping motorists to ask for marzipan and food coloring so she could make edible snowman place settings, using the cut pieces of wire for the arms, said Border Patrol officer Jenette Cushing. We put her in cell No. 7, because the morning sun really adds texture to the stucco walls. While some stragglers are believed to have successfully crossed into Mexico, Cushing said the bulk of the CEOnistas have holed themselves up at the Alamo. No, not the fort, the car rental place at the airport, she said. They're rotating all the tires on the minivans and accounting for each change as a sale. :D
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 # REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:28:04 -0600 Credit where it's due: http://www.satirewire.com/news/june02/ceonistas.shtml msg03299/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 service around. This is totally incorrect. Ask anyone who had been in this business from the beginning of nineties, not late nineties. How about people who were in the business or doing engineering on WANs in the late 80s? Telcos, while upgrading their systems, happily pointed at the PUC filings and sold you DS1 that went two blocks for $700 per month, that being inside a city. The local loop situation was, and in many cases remains, a major problem point; at one point, the ISP I was with was paying more for the last mile from CW facilities in each city to our POPs than for the long haul T-1 lines forming the nationwide backbone. We dropped our total telco costs by about 10% by locating our main NOC in a building housing CW and ATT Longlines facilities and calling in a contractor with a concrete drill to run conduit up through our ceiling into the ATT and CW machine rooms... All of that said, the long distance lines were already negotiable, and getting very rapidly more so, in 1991 and 1992. The rise of the Internet as a telecom bandwidth demand driver attracted the attention of investment bankers and capital, which then became somewhat of a set of complex feedback loops (capital going into all sorts of internet industries, infrastructure, etc, partly because it appeared to be good business and partly because of hype). The result was that speculation and hype drove overcapacity. This again is incorrect. The rise of content attracted investment bankers. Oh? And here I am wondering why the fiber plant growth started its serious upswing in the late 80s, prior to the invention of HTTP/HTML. Before anyone had invested serious money in any of the internet infrastructure companies, people were building out 10 megabit, T3 backbones and were talking to telco gear providers about what it would take to do 155 megabit and 622 megabit backbones and so on and so on. This is again incorrect. The people that you are talking about were UUNET and MCI, and we are talking 1994. That's years too late. UUNet had some 10 megabit WAN links while I was still in college, using those crazy 10meg-ethernet-into-SONNET custom hardware boxes if I remember right. T3 lines were technically available and priced by 1990; nobody had the money or customer demand to justify getting them. They were being used by telcos to upgrade their POTS services, but people were already asking what we could do with them with pure stream IP data, and looking at the OC-3 and OC-12 protocols as they developed, though that was mostly driven by LAN rather than WAN. It was clear to those of us in the late 80s and early 90s that if demand kept pulling, we needed to keep creating bandwidth. There had not been demand in 80. Neither had there been demand in the beginning of 1990s. Strange. When I started using the Internet, *the* T-1 backbone wasn't all done yet. I got a bad name a couple of times by pulling X11 releases down from MIT at times of day that it caused noticable delay in the rest of the country's coast-to-coast IP traffic. By the time I graduated college, there were three backbones, and T-1 was no longer the hottest WAN technology in use. The demand growth curve goes back a long, long ways, Alex. But in no way can you claim that it took a terabuck in capital push to make it happen. Demand pull was fully operational and working just fine before ISPs started being snapped up by phone companies and visa versa, and the huge money came into play. Yes I can. It did take terrabucks to get this industry rolling. You are mistaking terrabucks invested in capacity push as opposed to responding to demand pull. Demand pull is fine; when there's demand, if the cost model works out, you invest to support it. Capacity push is speculation on a growth curve. We didn't need that, though everyone who likes dark fiber now is acting like a kid in a candy shop since a terabuck or so was wasted on overprovisioning it... Hype might have been lower and growth somewhat slower, but I can easily see the set of people who were building out backbones with T-1s and the early fiber links having grown them up to networks capable of today's traffic. Are you talking about Net99 here? I can't even remember what year Net99 kicked off... Must have been what, 1994? I was chatting with Joe Stroup by cellphone from my inlaws place during their pre-launch nationwide tour, and the inlaws moved in there in 1994. Yes... Cook report 3.07 summary, Sept/Oct 94, seems to confirm that timing. Announced late 94, rolled out early 95. [Side note: Gordon, for historical purposes, would it be unreasonable if we asked you to make the full reports freely
Re: Sprint peering policy
Paul Vixie wrote: Space SNIP 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 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. Because Bernie and Crowd convinced the World Gov'ts that everyone would play fair without intervention. They promise, cross your heart, hope you die. Trust me is NY slang for FU, FWIW. * shrug * Carnegie once said... :\
Re: Sprint peering policy
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
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 revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage. A good proxy for the above is to ask the question: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? 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 gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper. DS
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper. It is called price descrimination and it does happen, not at burger king though. For example, those who arrive at certail site via Overture referals end up paying more for goods, compared to those who come from comparsion sites. Alex
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 revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage. A good proxy for the above is to ask the question: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? 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 gets out of the deal at all?! This is like saying that Burger King should charge hungrier people more for a Whopper. 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 won't (and shouldn't) do it. If party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value. Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return? Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't have something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free) with anyone. You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for your connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than that? 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 have some kind of subsidy paid from tax dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with people who have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to brag to his peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up... Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got here in the 1st place? No thanks. -PF
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 ?
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 somehow tie peering into this, please be my guest, but it would be a bit of a stretch. - Daniel Golding -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 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 ?
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 whEre
they shaLL control all yet again.
You decide for yourself if {not} peering is part of that picture...
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
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 somehow tie peering into this, please be my guest, but it would be a bit of a stretch. you've asked and answered your own question, though. remember, wcom tried to buy sprint and it was only the EU's antitrust folks who stopped them. when peering was an engineering issue rather than a sales/equity/PR issue, there was a lot of it, and there were fewer single points of failure at ISO-L8 than we see today. 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 about greed and not about service levels, competitive pricing, or overall sector health. closed peering is a bad business model. it shirks fiduciary duty to long-term equity holders in order to give periodic quick hits to short-term holders. closed peering proceeds from a Highlander-like premise there can be only one when in fact there could be many, and if there were many then the industry overall would be healthier.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 about greed and not about service levels, competitive pricing, or overall sector health. 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. Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 current peers. Reduced latency? Shorter hop counts? (Hello, this is customer xxx, why does it take 27 hops for me to get to xyz.com?) Do these not benefit them in any way? The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at least) 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 your operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same. -c
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 UUNET at $200 per mbit/sec, your costs will decrease. Just because the IP is free with peering does not mean that it costs $0 to peer. Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
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) 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 $0 to peer. 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't find OC3 transit in 4 cities from any ISP to be as cheap as OC3 peering in 4 cities, for example. Add to that the chance that, as a larger network, you'll probably be getting your pipes at volume discounts. I never meant to imply that peering is 0-cost. I just don't agree with the blanket statement that peering (or lack thereof) has no financial impact. -c
Game Theory (was: RE: Sprint peering policy)
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 gaining more from the interconnect that they are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time on the connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't receiving value for value. Suppose that X is presented with a take it or leave it deal. Suppose further that X, on net, benefits from this deal. Why should they care how much or how little Y, Z, or T benefit from the deal? What kind of business sense does that make? Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands caught in the cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for nothing in return? We're not talking about nothing in return. We're talking about an arrangement between two parties that both benefit from. Why should one party care how much the other benefits? (Except, of course, as possible leverage to negotiate a better deal.) What you're describing is a game theory problem.. The situation you describe, where neither party charges for as long as both parties benefit, this only occurs when the parties have no information on each other. Lets say you have two parties, AB, and zero transaction costs. Furthermore, both parties wish to obtain the MAXIMUM benefit from the deal. A benefits $ 50 B benefits $100 Now, there are 4 situations: 1. A knows nothing about how much B will benefit and vice versa. In this case, if either party tries to charge the other, they run a risk of having the deal fall through, and getting no benefit. The optimal situation is for neither party to request any payment from the other. (This situation is theoretical, in real business, you could make guesses as to the benefit obtained by another party.) Total benefit is $50 $100 2. B knows that A will benefit by $50. A knows nothing. Then, B could demand a charge of $49. A would choose to pay it, for they would obtain a net benefit of $1. Note that in this case, B who's already benefitting the most would get paid by A! Total benefit is $1 $149 3. A knows that B will benefit by $100. B knows nothing. Then A could demand a charge of $99. B would choose to pay it, for they would obtain a net benefit of $1. Total benefit is $149 and $1. 4. A and B both know how much the other benefits. Then.. I'm not exactly sure how game theory reasons this out. In reality, there is more than one party, and imperfect information on respective benefits. I believe one would use an economic and statistical argument, and the expected result would be that B paid A $25. Actually, I think you can make peering fair in a much more simple way. Simply explain to people a sensible and rational way to evaluate their peering decisions. Does it benefit me as much as or more than anyone else is neither sensible not rational. Does it benefit me more than it costs me? and Is it the best deal I can negotiate for this amount of benefit?, on the other hand, are sensible, rational, and fair. Knowing how much the other benefits from a particular transaction can lead to a remarkable difference in how valuable the transaction is to the respective parties. And maximizing revenue is the purpose of business. Scott
Re: Sprint peering policy
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't find OC3 transit in 4 cities from any ISP to be as cheap as OC3 peering in 4 cities, for example. Add to that the chance that, as a larger network, you'll probably be getting your pipes at volume discounts. That all depends on what you buy and where you peer. I can easily come up with 4x OC3 transit prices well below the cost of MAE, AADS, or PAIX (well in FastE at any rate) port pricing, without even counting the cost of the circuit to those facilities. Thats assuming you'd get perfect utilization out of those peering ports (ie that you'd get enough peers and have enough traffic to potentially use it completely or near completely). Just because you aren't paying for the bandwidth doesn't mean you can't end up spending more than you would for transit if you don't know what you are doing. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 AboveNet is, did the number of customers they got from having a network with open peering offset the number of customers they lost who peered with them instead of buying transit? Personally, I think the answer is yes. *IF* you could have a setup where you could peer AND buy at the same time, then your model works better. An extremely bad idea from a network abuse standpoint. But then again, if someone really wanted it that badly, whats to stop them from spending $200 on a fake company that buys the transit? #2 When something is being done for free, it is often not being done as well as if it were paid for, case in point: AboveNet's link to NY-IIX is 100mbit, right? The MRTG graphs seem to indicate that it is, AND that it was doing 90 megabit for several months straight. Shouldn't this have been upgraded to gig-e? Not cost effective? There are a lot worse examples of congestion in their graphs, though things have gotten a lot better in the last month or so as some big customers have pulled out (supernews for example). Also remember that you are looking at the yearly graph which is a 1 day average, I'm sure the 5 minute samples were quite pegged. But as for your point of free vs paid... They had transit customers paying them and they still delivered it through congested peers, so that really doesn't prove much. I'd say this falls into the category of why you don't want to buy from financially unstable companies who wait until there is noone left to lay off before filing chapter 11 myself. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Sprint peering policy
In article cistron.!~[EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping ATT 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, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need more ports. Wcom could peer with Joe Six Pack ISP at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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, peering was a great cost savines. 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 your OC-48 into the router... What's the true cost of peering? An OC48 to PAIX, and let's say you serve all your traffic needs from there, and ignore connection charges, or an OC48 to a transit provider at $50 a meg? I'm pretty sure that the peering model does not hold up as well as it should. Now... Do I believe that there is added benefit to peering? Yes, of course, but not nearly what it used to be. If it's a benefit to your customers, and helps increase your number of customers, then it may still be a good thing. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Sprint peering policy
In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them) --Phil -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 cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACABgA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5 [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping ATT 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, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need more ports. Wcom could peer with Joe Six Pack ISP at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
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. I think you missed the definition of tier 1... Oh wait, we're all using made-up definitions anyways. Nevermind. --- That's my definition of Tier 1, in case you hadn't guessed. --- The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at least) You are one very confused individual. --- You are saying that Wcom doesn't peer enough to remain financially viable? I was never a Wcom subscriber, but I would venture to guess that they never go more than 30ms extra (and almost never more than 20ms extra) than any other carrier starting at the same physical location, and ending at the same network location. eg, verio has a lot of peering in NYC, Virginia, and Chicago. 50% of my traffic to them gets dumped off in NYC or Newark (close), 25% in virginia, 25% in chicago. I avoid the chicago and virginia peers as much as possible. I would assume that Wcom would have probably closer to 75% staying in NYC, but, this is completely an assumption. If I'm correct, then I think that is more than enough peering to keep their customers happy, no? --Phil
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 anything to do with their financial stability, actually. Their absolutily pitiful integration of all the companies they bought is far more important. eg, verio has a lot of peering in NYC, Virginia, and Chicago. 50% of my traffic to them gets dumped off in NYC or Newark (close), 25% in virginia, 25% in chicago. I avoid the chicago and virginia peers as much as possible. To get it off their network, yes UU doesn't have to carry it very far. As for where it actually goes, thats their peers' problem. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Sprint peering policy
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. 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 your OC-48 into the router... What's the true cost of peering? 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. For people who already have a router at an exchange point or NAP, the costs are already there. Extra ports are not expensive once you have those basics covered. An OC48 to PAIX, and let's say you serve all your traffic needs from there, and ignore connection charges, or an OC48 to a transit provider at $50 a meg? I'm pretty sure that the peering model does not hold up as well as it should. It's typically cheaper to get unbundled dark fiber or even local loop SONET services to a nearby exchange point facility than to a carrier-specific POP. You can only connect to one organization in the carrier-specific POP, while connecting at at carrier neutral EP facility will open up a lot of options. Also, being a customer of said EP facility has distinct advantages!!! Being in a carrier neutal facility is one thing, being a customer at a carrier neutral facility puts you at an extreme advantage when playing the money game (for transit provider negotiations, building peering relationships, bringing up new circuits for transport, et al). Now... Do I believe that there is added benefit to peering? Yes, of course, but not nearly what it used to be. If it's a benefit to your customers, and helps increase your number of customers, then it may still be a good thing. You have to look at all the advantages/disadvantages for your organization. People have in the past and will continue in the future to use peering to lower costs for their networks. It's not just some side benefit for your customers, but it can be that as well. The concept of peering hasn't changed just because transit prices are lower. You can't always assume that the transit prices are going to stay the same (how long can providers sell transit at $50/meg?), peering relationships tend to last a lot longer, EP relationships hopefully even longer - which can pay off a lot in the long run. If you want to talk about advantages of transit vs. peering, that has already really been discussed over and over again on this and probably other lists. Most networks today implement both; they compliment each other. Can somebody get by with $50/meg transit? Yes. Is that always going to be cheaper than adding peering into the mix? Who knows, it really depends on a lot of factors. dre
RE: Sprint peering policy
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 for anything they sell and not one dollar less. On the other hand, if a deal provides any net benefit, once all costs are taken into account, a rational company will take it. So if company X refuses a deal that provides it a net benefit just because company Y gets more out of it than company X, and as a result company Y goes to company Z instead, company X has acted foolishly and irrationally. DS
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
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 traffic across an interconnect would truely be a 1 to 1 ratio, then the bills would cancel each other out, where the 1 to 1.6 or so would lean in towards favoring the company taking more traffic onto it's network. Why favor the company that took more traffic? Why not favor the company that provided more traffic? Your customers pay you both to delivery their packets to others and to deliver packets to them, right? If I go to a web page, presumably the web page owner wants to receive my request and show me his content about as much as I want to see his content, no? DS
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 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 relationship.
Alternatively, two providers could peer via a { cell | packet }-
switched fabric, splitting the cost.
ISP1: NYC, SJC, CHI
ISP2: LAX, SJC, SEA
A cloud connects the five cities. ISP1 and ISP2 split the cost,
and exchange traffic via the cloud. Suddenly traffic ratios
become less important, and traffic levels become the primary
justification metric.
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to
be blocked.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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) from your CO to PAIX/PE, then where is your single point of failure? What help does having redundany peers (which are not redundant anyways) at the same peering facility if you can't get to it? I think I would much rather have two circuits to two different transit providers for the same money. Also, unless you actually have all your CO equipment at the PE facilities, you will still have to have a CO (co-located or not) from which to serve your customers in that market. I don't know what PAIX charges for this ability, or if they even allow it, but... It seems that this would get real expensive real fast. Now, for joe-blow ISP, maybe it's a good deal to be there. But he probably doesn't meet the peering requirements for larger players anyways. I don't believe in free-for-all peering. Who would you sell to if you peered with everyone? You have to look at all the advantages/disadvantages for your organization. Of course. As I have already stated, I'm not against peering. Actaully, I am all for it. It is just that I am for it for different reasons than others may be. I don't believe that it's a great cost saveings today. Maybe in a year, things will change again, and we will all start making a profit off bandwidth. Maybe 90% of the companies will be gone, and we'll be back to where we were 10 years ago. Who knows? People have in the past and will continue in the future to use peering to lower costs for their networks. This is a foolhearty reason to do this. If you are only looking at the financial benefit, you are opening yourself up to a whole can of worms. If you are peered with everyone, and it is costing you $x a meg to get off your network, then you should cancel all peering the minute it is seen that it will cost $x-1 for transit. I seriously doubt that this was the main reason why peering was started anyways. how long can providers sell transit at $50/meg? Indeed. I hope that it isn't that long, but when you are only charging $3- to $50 a meg to your cable-modem/DSL subscriber, what profit are you making be paying more than that? If you want to talk about advantages of transit vs. peering I think everyone knows the technical advantages and disadvantages of both peering and transit. I don't think it really has anything to do with this discussion. This discussion is more to do with that is cheaper at this time, peering or transit? Maybe I completely missed the boat on this one, but if we are talking about regulation so someone doesn't get cheated... We are talking about money. And since I brought it up, I'm not particularly interested in governmental regulation either. _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
RE: Sprint peering policy
-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 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 ? --- Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering or the Internet business? These bankruptcies have not disrupted Internet service particularly... Further, by forcing companies already in financial jeopardy to start peering, I don't think you will be increasing stability at all. If these companies go away, their customers will need to be acquired or transitioned to more stable players. Either way, the idea of peering with them is moot. I shudder to think what working with France Telecom will be like if it gets renationalized. Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
[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 being able to reach a large amount of content is a benefit to 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, more like 10:1 or 1:10 [depending on which way you are looking]. Regards, Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded fraud/bankruptcies in American History ? --- Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering or the Internet business? To prevent Fraud/ Anti competitive practices ? Remember the formula, peer until the customer grows... then pull back peering and demand more money, thus causing a financial disaster in what had previously been a financially stable company... Then acquire them when they bankruptcy. Repeat as needed, until PEER == NULL. Then, when your company has gotten in over -it's- head, from too rapid a growth factor, and too much acquisition of debt of absorbed companies, withdraw as much money as you can and go under, sticking it to the American Public. Something or Someone has to break that cycle of pain. So, someone said tie peering to the bankrupcty ? See above. BTW, double dipping did -not- prove to be successful at offsetting this acquisition debt, so that method should be stopped, eh ? Most people would call it Anti-competitive practices, don't you think ? Remember: There can only be ONE! These bankruptcies have not disrupted Internet service particularly... Only because Judges intervened to keep them open until an alternative could be found. My and Your TAX money at work. Thanks a lot. And lets not forget, WorldCom has yet to complete it's cycle.. Further, by forcing companies already in financial jeopardy to start peering, I don't think you will be increasing stability at all. Maybe they wouldn't BE in financial jeopardy if they traded peering traffic for -=free=-, the way the internet was originally designed. The ramifications are NOT simple, they are complex and interrelated.. Like I said, Allen Greenspan, Bernie wasn't. Don't forget, A large number of these companies went down trying to create a net large enough to peer with Tier 1's when they shouldn't have needed that large a network, in the first place. By then the damage is done, the debt has been created, acquisition just adds into the cascade effect. If these companies go away, their customers will need to be acquired or transitioned to more stable players. Either way, the idea of peering with them is moot. Why ? You still haven't answered that basic question: = Now, someone explain how an internet provider convinced congress that =it didn't really have to carry its own -internet customers- packet from one =side of its -=own=- network to the other side, unless -=both=- =parties paid it money ? The argument should be who is paying for the wire, and does the bandwidth cost justify the -=port=-, not who will you -=peer=- witheh ? I shudder to think what working with France Telecom will be like if it gets renationalized. We weren't discussing renationalization, just regulation. Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
I don't see that either. Whether you do hot potato or cold potato routing, one of the ISPs is paying more (i.e. number of bits x distance) than the other one. Simply put, the web hosting content is being delivered to the access provider either at first or last exit. If its first exit, the access provider is paying the largest piece, if its last exit, the web hosting provider is paying the largest piece. You achieve price symmetry when push/pull ratios match or approach each other because the amount of bits x distance for each party is more equal. This is what many tier-1'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 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
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 monthly costs for your OC-48 into the router... What's the true cost of peering? At last check, the largest network was still WCOM. Depending on your measure, they are somewhere between 10% and 40% of the internet. What is important is they are not even half. Others are smaller. This means for all ISP's, the _majority_ of their traffic goes off net, across a peering connection. This gives us two very interesting possible end games: * Peering costs are less than $50 a meg for large ISP's. They make a profit on every bit. * Peering costs are more than $50 a meg, and ISP's selling at that price are losing money on every bit moved by a customer. 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 door, even if it comes in at a loss. If you've paid $70/meg for a peering connection a loss of $20 is better than not selling, and having a loss of $70. I'm all for taking advantage of $50/meg transit while you can get it. I wouldn't bet on your ISP staying in business though, and I wouldn't bet on the price, once this is all shaken out, being that low. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org
Re:fundamentalist's opinion-- Vixie-- Re: Sprint peering policy
While I do assert the validity of concerns for the economic repercussions as a result of laissez-fair 'Internet' practices, I don't believe the sky is falling. There is enough economic strength to maintain the use we actually get out of necessary pipes, and continued growth will, in do time, support the expansion predicted in the mid to late '90s. Will the shortfall take with it some undeserving companies, peoples, and ideas, yes, but that has been the nature of every economic boom. Legitimate claims can be made that abusive peering policies can be detrimental to the free trade of ideas and commerce, and may lead to monopolies that dwarf the infamy of Standard Oil, ATT, Debeers... but what is the cost? A government mandated (censorship and exclusion of anti-American 3rd world countries aside) policy at this point will more quickly downward spiral the rapid growth all us geeks have embraced. The only thing that will cushion the blow at this point is continued, if not growing, consumer use; and, the US government--if no private company steps up--may have to buy out some pipes to protect the DOD and primary Intercontinental connections. Any intervention, or escalation of involvement, by the FCC, for accountability and peering regulation, will have to come after the dust settles, in the form of a free trade act aimed at equal pricing for competitors. Have faith in the individual.. I realize this is off the page, so let me leave you with /rant. --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 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 down and do economic harm. We are now halfway through 2002. the build out is complete and most of the builders are either in chapter 11 or in danger of going there. Does anyone believe that the non regulation arguments of the build out phase still hold? If so other than for reasons of blind ideology (all regulation by definition is bad), why? All the TIER 1s (6 were mentioned in an earlier comment) are in SERIOUS economic trouble. Their IP networks certainly qualify as CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. EBONE in a matter of days went from 'viable to life support. After WorldCom's scandal this week does anyone REALLY think a similar UGLY surprise cannot happen here? As PAUL points out, this is now an industry that is critical to keeping economic activity flowing smoothly, yet Washington is taking more and more of a hands off course. Where is it possible to gain any reliable data on which networks are lit with what equipment and offering how many actual lambdas? Or even how many fibers in a given back bone are actually lit? We know there is huge unused capacity, yet because there are no reporting requirements as to what networks are lit to what capacity, we very likely don't know whether the fiber in the ground is being used to one per cent of its potential or 10% or even 20%. Moreover we do not know the extent to which optical bandwidth is growing? Not knowing this, how can anyone make any intelligent economic or policy or investment decisions? The LECs must tell the FCC numbers of lines in use and numbers of access minutes. The IP industry must tell the FCC essentially nothing. Why shoud such policy continue? Does the borg still exist? do big players at least still share this data with each other? Will Congress have to pass a law before the FCC can demand data? as Vixie said: we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind. Paul Vixie said something important when he commented that i won't take a position on this, other than that dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability. wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer (citizen). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life ( economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of self regulation currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
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, everyone feels good that nobody is taking a free ride over the other's pipe. No? DJ If, on the other hand, you are connecting your three routers DJ to the same cloud and peering at a NAP, you are essentially DJ using someone else's network. This is one of the reason large DJ networks put pipe-size point-to-point requirements in their DJ agreements -- to specifically avoid this. Not that Large Network could create a peering fabric via its own capacity and charge Small Network roughly half (splitting the cost) for fabric access. In this case, it's not so much paid peering in the standard sense as it is settlement-free peering and pay-as-you-go geographical expansion. In the extreme degenerate case, one approaches paid peering. Do you mean to state that there is no possible way to find a middle ground between pay-amount-x-to-peer-y-at-any-given-pop and settlement-free peering? DJ People who think ATM or FR sucks over long distances won't do DJ it. 1. Such fabric could be IP-based. 2. ATM and FR don't suck inherently; they work quite well on small, bursty interfaces when statmuxed within sane bounds. (Don't blame stupid network design on the technology used.) 3. Any provider big enough to have outgrown FR and ATM probably can expand their footprint on their own. DJ Anyone who uses a large cloud like this from another network DJ and finds it reliable, I'd like to hear from you privately. Anyone who use(s|d) a large cloud, I'd like to hear... along with what reliability (is|was). I won't stretch my case so far as to claim that regional universities sharing a WAN and peering at a NAP counts... DJ The biggest reason this is bad is because of the single point FUD alert! DJ of failure issues here. A single switch in the cloud loses DJ its marbles and all of your PVCs, MPLS tunnels, or whatever DJ could bring down your entire peering fabric. If designed improperly. And a single router failure could bring down an entire WAN, if said WAN were designed improperly. Your point? Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Sprint peering policy
I switch traffic measured in gbits, and everything is kept on private peering at the moment (although that is likely to change in the not-too-distant future). I doubt I will push more than 200 on the public exchange I am thinking of joining... Many public exchanges either feature few large carriers, or large carriers that would not be interested in peering with you, unless you are a Fortune 500. --Phil -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Wilcox Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:48 PM To: Deepak Jain Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg; [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 where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones.. Steve On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Deepak Jain wrote: WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP. Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth nowadays (for medium 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy In article cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACABgA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+ v5DgN/ [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Rosenthal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping ATT 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, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need more ports. Wcom could peer with Joe Six Pack ISP at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 kbps per US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level. (I need to start pumping more traffic to catch up to my personal fair share!) Interesting point. Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Sprint peering policy (fwd)
Your argument, specifically regarding customer's expectations vis-a-vis their purchase agreement has nothing to do with peering and everything to do with connectivity. A customer has every right to expect connectivity to Internet destinations, but has no right to tell their provider HOW to do it -- they simply have the right to decide WHETHER the isp can handle his packets at all (or say, which destinations). If a provider is providing connectivity for its customers, the decision to peer has nothing to do with the customer, provided the customer has decided to give customer packets to the provider. If a provider provides excellent connectivity, but for simplicity's sake does not want to deal with 100 extra interfaces and peering sessions, it is the provider's option. If this provider becomes big and successful by following this model because his customers keep deciding to give him packets, no one outside of the provider's management really has the right to influence that decision process. If the provider fails, its because customers haven't decided to provide the provider packets. Either way, the decision has nothing to do with outsiders. I can tell you you will save a ton of money by peering with me, but that doesn't mean you are bright enough to do it. In fact, you are more likely to suspect my motivations. Plenty of _large_ networks have been screwed by peering arrangements that take advantage of the topology of the _larger_ network's structure -- I don't think the lesson gets forgotten just because there is a new crop of small networks that think they are up and comers. We can talk about big networks failing (financially) all the time, but we don't even have the time to keep track of all the little networks that made a big deal about peering with everything they could at a NAP or elsewhere and then just faded without so much as a goodbye email stating their BGP session would be going away forever. I am sure anyone who has played in more than 1 NAP for any length of time can share 5 stories about how their NOC diligently tried to notify their peer of each hiccup (initially) then eventually went to notifying peers if they were down for x amount of time, and then after y amount of time realized the session wouldn't come back up on its own and started to research whether the company was even still around. All of this costs money and energy (people-bandwidth) so you have to decide is it really worth the bother? Monkeys (as you put it) can buy transit cheap nowadays. Very few new networks have the level of usage to make a widely peered (geographically, not # of peers) strategy actually make cost-sense, so essentially peering with someone who is overextending themselves is just creating headache for you and your network later. Customers pay a fee that should include the amount of headache they create. Peering implies (to me) that each network creates an equal amount of headache for the other, and hopefully approaches zero over time. And as was mentioned many times, peering with the easy guys is just that, people only complain about peering when they try the less easy ones. And I top quoted. Deepak Jain AiNET -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]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 of the ISPs is paying more (i.e. number of bits x distance) than the other one. Perhaps, but if they are limiting it to their own customers, which is implied by peering, as opposed to transit, it shouldn't be relevant. They have to carry that traffic to -=somewhere=- anyway, as the transit customer of -=their=- network paid for it, as part of the implied contract when purchasing internet access. Simply put, the web hosting content is being delivered to the access provider either at first or last exit. If its first exit, the access provider is paying the largest piece, if its last exit, the web hosting provider is paying the largest piece. If a provider has a larger network, irrespective of the potential -peers- size, the probability is -=inferred=- that he will have to carry it further to get it off his own network, irrespective of to whom, direct peer, or not. * shrug * Hardly an excuse. This is just a rationalization to shift the burden of the Monkey. You achieve price symmetry when push/pull ratios match or approach each other because the amount of bits x distance for each party is more equal. This is what many tier-1's would consider an equal peering relationship. This posture assumes that the customer sending the packet didn't -already- pay for internet access, and hence transit. There is a contractual agreement -=already=- in place, implied by buying transit, that the network in question will carry that packet
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones.. 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 important. If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting the traffic only once through the system) going through the US backbones I'd be very surprised. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RE: Sprint peering policy
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 policy 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 the RAS traffic only once through the system) going through the US RAS backbones I'd be very surprised. Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level. (I need to start pumping more traffic to catch up to my personal fair share!) Interesting point. Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 important. If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting the traffic only once through the system) going through the US backbones I'd be very surprised. 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. Andrew Odlyzko (*) See my papers at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/networks.html, or a recent (and about to be updated) report from RHK.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 governments have stepped in, unfortunately the ACCC (the government body in Australia charged with preventing monopolies), while forcing the vehemently anti-peering Telstra to peer with a very small group of other providers (Optus, who have been purchased by the normally pro-peering SingTel who then have not peered the Optus network with their own network, preventing it becoming available to SingTel's Australian peers; and OzEmail, who were purchased by WorldCom as uu.net were not of sufficient size in Australia to justify a peering mandate, so rather than pay for traffic they paid $0.5billion to buy an ISP who already had peering), have failed to force this peering to happen on terms which would make it easy for other companies to join the situation. Rather, should a new company wish to join the peering, they would have to (after applying directly to peer with each company, having it rejected, and going to the ACCC indicating this rejection is believed to be a form of anti-competitive behaviour given the equitable nature of traffic between the two networks, etc) establish an individual direct link in most states to each ISP who is currently part of this peering. If the peering were happening at IXs/exchanges of some sort the cost of entry would be a lot lower and at least two to three more companies would most likely have approached the ACCC to participate in this peering by now. It still would require a full national network to reach each peering exchange but at least it would put an upper bound on the cost of joining the Australian tier-1 peering (or however you want to label it). David.
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 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. If the large tier 1 peers and demands high traffic levels, the tier 1 then moves more traffic through revenue producing pipes. This gives the tier 1 more cash. I have seen data that seems to indicate that the major Cable and DSL providers - if you subtract the flows that cross the tier 1s - haul a significant percentage of the traffic ... a percentage that is growing faster than the traditional B2B tier 1s due to explotion of P2P traffic. 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 connectivity. Big web customer wants the guy at the end of the broadband connection to have a good experience. Tier 1, by depeering or not peering is keeping paying clients from have an optimized network environment. The smart customers start checking out alternatives where they are not blocked from optimum network performance by the policies of a peer unfriendly tier 1 hosting company. Vijay is correct that the peering is based on both parties perceived value. IMHO - Some of the tier 1 highly over value themselves (in terms of network importance) to the detriment of those tier 1s' customers and cashflow. Demanding traffic levels, geographical diversity, x size backbone and a 24x7 NOC as conditions for peering is not unreasonable. Demands for large aggrigated route table size without a consideration of traffic as a condition seems to me to be an exclusionary policy of the type that attracts regulation and reduces revenue. I admit to being corrupted by my prospective ... ;-) BTW Bill Norton's peering strategy paper gives some excellent guidence for inflicting pain on non peers. --On Friday, 28 June 2002 22:31 -0700 Mike Leber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 Jun 2002, 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: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? This incorrectly presumes that being equal is necessary, when in truth each party is going to have a threshold and method for determining the value of the exchange that is independent of the other parties preconceptions. Point in case, most networks care significantly more about what they get out of a peering session than what the their peers get out of it. And this is correct and valid because only by paying attention to the actual underlying economic reasons for making peering decisions will they be able to ensure they stay in business. 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. By your reasoning all ventures should be 50/50 partnerships, which they aren't. I'll concede if a network were to percieve themselves as a majority share holder and think themselves large enough to effect the underlying price of bandwidth in the market then they might focus primarily on how to prevent another network from making more money than them from a peering agreement, as you describe. However, based on all the bankruptcies they should be more focused on their own immediate operational costs and staying in business than worrying about any single competitor. X states that they would only feel equal value is derived by both parties if traffic between X and the other party is n mb/s with a ratio of p:q. Y disagrees. They do not interconnect. This causes pain. Again, this is proof of my first point above, that each network has its own method of evaluating peering and that their method matters more to them than what the peer thinks. to make sense of their peering policy, just accept the fact that each company has policies that they believe to be in their best interests and omit the pretense of justifying this by the movement of heavenly bodies in the spheres. I think we are in agreement here. I figured, I just couldn't let you get away with the equal remark lest onlookers pickup bad attitudes. :-P Mike. +--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 peering, especially with large broadband providers. 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. But bearing in mind that by peering they only see the provider and the provider's customer's routes the tier1 would most likely have been receiving the traffic anyway just via a different route (another tier1 providing transit to the broadband operator) Peering around only works if the networks the broadband provider wants to reach are buying from another network that they can get peering with, as most tier1's have similar i'll call it 'fascist' peering regimes they will not be able to peer around. They will of course be able to get peering with smaller providers but these are individually small gains.. Steve If the large tier 1 peers and demands high traffic levels, the tier 1 then moves more traffic through revenue producing pipes. This gives the tier 1 more cash. I have seen data that seems to indicate that the major Cable and DSL providers - if you subtract the flows that cross the tier 1s - haul a significant percentage of the traffic ... a percentage that is growing faster than the traditional B2B tier 1s due to explotion of P2P traffic. 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 connectivity. Big web customer wants the guy at the end of the broadband connection to have a good experience. Tier 1, by depeering or not peering is keeping paying clients from have an optimized network environment. The smart customers start checking out alternatives where they are not blocked from optimum network performance by the policies of a peer unfriendly tier 1 hosting company. Vijay is correct that the peering is based on both parties perceived value. IMHO - Some of the tier 1 highly over value themselves (in terms of network importance) to the detriment of those tier 1s' customers and cashflow. Demanding traffic levels, geographical diversity, x size backbone and a 24x7 NOC as conditions for peering is not unreasonable. Demands for large aggrigated route table size without a consideration of traffic as a condition seems to me to be an exclusionary policy of the type that attracts regulation and reduces revenue. I admit to being corrupted by my prospective ... ;-) BTW Bill Norton's peering strategy paper gives some excellent guidence for inflicting pain on non peers. --On Friday, 28 June 2002 22:31 -0700 Mike Leber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 29 Jun 2002, 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: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? This incorrectly presumes that being equal is necessary, when in truth each party is going to have a threshold and method for determining the value of the exchange that is independent of the other parties preconceptions. Point in case, most networks care significantly more about what they get out of a peering session than what the their peers get out of it. And this is correct and valid because only by paying attention to the actual underlying economic reasons for making peering decisions will they be able to ensure they stay in business. 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. By your reasoning all ventures should be 50/50 partnerships, which they aren't. I'll concede if a network were to percieve themselves as a majority share holder and think themselves large enough to effect the underlying price of bandwidth in the market then they might focus primarily on how to prevent another network from making more money than them from a peering agreement, as you describe. However, based on all the bankruptcies they should be more focused on their own immediate operational costs and staying in business than worrying about any single competitor. X states that they would only feel equal value is derived by both parties if traffic between X and the other party is n mb/s
Re: Sprint peering policy
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/destinations shift. Hunt for the growing traffic, not just a network brand that may be in need of a facelift. Steve, I hope you/Opal Telecom are looking into the Adlex tools. Play with the traffic tracker and find out who is in your top 10, top 20, etc. circles at different times of the day/week. Chase the band between 2030 and see what a difference you can make in terms of performance for your network. It is amazing how quickly you can discover that some networks are out there under multiple ASNs (legal and other reasons prevail) and when peered with that 'entity' you can punt a former top 10 down a band. Adlex, while expensive, can help prove your theory is inaccurate. Adlex has paid for itself in just a matter of months from my perspective G -ren At 10:37 AM 6/29/2002 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Peering around only works if the networks the broadband provider wants to reach are buying from another network that they can get peering with, as most tier1's have similar i'll call it 'fascist' peering regimes they will not be able to peer around. They will of course be able to get peering with smaller providers but these are individually small gains.. Steve
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 connectivity. Big web customer wants the guy at the end of the broadband connection to have a good experience. Tier 1, by depeering or not peering is keeping paying clients from have an optimized network environment. The smart customers start checking out alternatives where they are not blocked from optimum network performance by the policies of a peer unfriendly tier 1 hosting company. Vijay is correct that the peering is based on both parties perceived value. IMHO - Some of the tier 1 highly over value themselves (in terms of network importance) to the detriment of those tier 1s' customers and cashflow. What about the other way around, eyeball providers who depeer content providers so they can try to sell content hosting. I think this is something Vijay may be more familiar with. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Sprint peering policy
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. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that peering or not is good for long term economic viability. I doubt peering for a large tier 1 is directly affecting their economic state, they will see all networks via peers with their fellow tier 1 networks and peering further downstream isnt going to alter cost.. Of course they alter costs. NAP fees, OC lines, router interfaces, management of BGP sessions, etc., etc. all cost money. Furthermore, peering at 15 places probably requires less of a national backbone than peering at 4 places because you have fewer and closer exit points, which may reduce internal costs. Then again, the fees for 15 NAPs, plus 15 OC lines, plus 15 router cards, plus whatever else may well be more than the cost of increasing your national backbone. And as for being able see all networks just because you are a Tier 1, do you mean like Above.Net and PSI? Or PSI and CW when they recently had a bit of an argument? Or Exodus and BBN a while ago? Or any of a gazillion other examples? As shown on this list, just because you think you are a Tier 1 these days does not guarantee you a view to all other networks. And it *certainly* does not guarantee you anywhere near an optimal path to all prefixes in the global Peering does affect both stability and economics. I just think it affects them differently than most tier 1 players - the more you peer, the better your economics. They think that the less you peer, the better your economics because then people will pay you to get to your backbone. I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other reasons to close your peering policy. 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. This is why I think peering more will help you economically. Peering less might get you a few more downstreams, but we how many people are really ready to peer at the big peering points? 200? 500? And how many downstreams does someone like UU or Sprint have? 20,000? 50,000? Probably more. KPNQwest claimed they had over 100,000 business customers before they went belly up, and I bet US carriers have more. So they are trading reduced performance and reliability, plus pissing off the rest of the Internet community, for the *potential* to sign less than 1% of their current base. (Remember, just because SmallISP.com cannot peer with UU, CW, Sprint, ATT, Qwest, L3, etc. does not mean he will buy from all of them.) All that said, there are other reasons for big networks not to peer with anyone who asks. Both economic and technical reasons. I just personally feel the bar is too high for most big players. Then again, I repeat, the Internet is still (mostly) regulation free, so if you own a network, you get to peer - or not - with whomever you please. And I would not have it any other way. Steve -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Sprint peering policy
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 expensive bandwidth on their RAS backbone. Do they? Or might they peer using routes from the local point? Perhaps Little ISP in Denver would happily peer with Large Provider for Denver routes only. Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Sprint peering policy
: 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. Let's hope they don't decide to do that. i won't take a position on this, other than that dense peering, and high path splay, are good for global internet performance and reliability. wrt the basic likelihood, though, it comes down to the consumer (citizen). if the following are all true, then the world's gov'ts have usually acted: 1. availability of the service is fundamental to quality of life ( economy) 2. cost, availability, or reliability depend on competition (vs monopoly) 3. local economies will benefit more from competition than from monopoly 4. predatory or monopoly practices appear to be in effect so, the reason i am puzzled is that while some of those could be argued by some people, they _are_not_being_argued_about_. there's a blind eye here. none of the following industries would be allowed the kind of self regulation currently practiced in the IP carriage field: air travel, commercial fishing, leased line telco, or switched voice telco. we're treated in a hands-off fashion that absolutely boggles the mind.
Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
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, there is a lot of recent work that suggests that there can be a very poor (and as it turns out poorly understood) interaction between richness of interconnection and BGP dynamics; this is due, at least in part, to amplification and coupling effects that appear in some large systems. So many argue that that given the current set of protocols (i.e. BGP and its implementations), increased topological richness beyond some threshold can actually hurt robustness and reliability. And just to be clear about this, this is not a statement about peering policies themselves (I'm explicitly not commenting on that), but rather about our current understanding of some of the dynamics that exist in today's Internet. I've been trying to capture some of this in the following document (with the able help of Randy, Tim, and many others): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-03.txt On the topic of interconnection richness and its (possibly unanticipated) effects, Craig and Abha's early work on this is maybe the canonical reference. For something a little more recent, see What is the Sound of One Route Flapping, Timothy G. Griffin, IPAM Workshop on Large-Scale Communication Networks: Topology, Routing, Traffic, and Control, March, 2002. In any event, I guess the bottom line here is that sometimes what looks like common sense (or even what we have a tendency to call conventional wisdom) may just be wrong. Dave
interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
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 magnified by multihoming punching holes in large aggregates. Small announcement show more churn because they are more granular. They expand the route table thus slowing convergence. Scientific investigation and public sharing of data can help networks build policies based on service criteria. Many large networks are reluctant to share internal data that could help in the broader analysis of stability issues. Where is the threshold? Can I turn it into a policy? How much does topology effect stability? Hierarchal design tends to mitigate instability when it can be localized to a small segment of your network infrastructure. 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 could not keep up with the growth and churn rate. The inclusion of algorithms that enhanced oscillation ringing (and since has been fixed in IOS) did not help. --On Saturday, 29 June 2002 09:48 -0700 David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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, there is a lot of recent work that suggests that there can be a very poor (and as it turns out poorly understood) interaction between richness of interconnection and BGP dynamics; this is due, at least in part, to amplification and coupling effects that appear in some large systems. So many argue that that given the current set of protocols (i.e. BGP and its implementations), increased topological richness beyond some threshold can actually hurt robustness and reliability. And just to be clear about this, this is not a statement about peering policies themselves (I'm explicitly not commenting on that), but rather about our current understanding of some of the dynamics that exist in today's Internet. I've been trying to capture some of this in the following document (with the able help of Randy, Tim, and many others): http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ymbk-arch-guidelines-03.txt On the topic of interconnection richness and its (possibly unanticipated) effects, Craig and Abha's early work on this is maybe the canonical reference. For something a little more recent, see What is the Sound of One Route Flapping, Timothy G. Griffin, IPAM Workshop on Large-Scale Communication Networks: Topology, Routing, Traffic, and Control, March, 2002. In any event, I guess the bottom line here is that sometimes what looks like common sense (or even what we have a tendency to call conventional wisdom) may just be wrong. Dave -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature? -- anon msg03143/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
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 could not keep up with the growth and churn rate. The inclusion of algorithms that enhanced oscillation ringing (and since has been fixed in IOS) did not help. Have you ever seen an InterNAP route flap? Its good for around two minutes or 120 traceroutes of pure humor, with a different loop across a different backbone in a different city with every invokation. Extensive peering relationships don't generally cause a breakdown of BGP, which is probably the reason that we have settled into using that system. Extensive transit relationships on the other hand, like those used by the optimized routing crowd to try and take advantage of all the richness of paths out there which aren't being used efficiently, break BGP very very quickly (in my experience at any rate). -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
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 optimized paths via transit connections. If you have 10 ways to an ASN and 3 or four stable and clean diverse routes exist ... why chew up memory and CPU listening to the poor routes? --On Saturday, 29 June 2002 16:01 -0400 Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 could not keep up with the growth and churn rate. The inclusion of algorithms that enhanced oscillation ringing (and since has been fixed in IOS) did not help. Have you ever seen an InterNAP route flap? Its good for around two minutes or 120 traceroutes of pure humor, with a different loop across a different backbone in a different city with every invokation. Extensive peering relationships don't generally cause a breakdown of BGP, which is probably the reason that we have settled into using that system. Extensive transit relationships on the other hand, like those used by the optimized routing crowd to try and take advantage of all the richness of paths out there which aren't being used efficiently, break BGP very very quickly (in my experience at any rate). -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature? -- anon msg03146/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
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 the route table thus slowing convergence. Point: there's a body of data that indicates multihoming is not the culprit. There's a lot of needless de-aggregating that has little or nothign to do with multihoming, and mostly to do with lack of clue. Both WRT limiting the scope of provider-based so-called traffic engineering (CF ptomaine drafts) and that folks not using large tracts of space can return blocks and get blocks that actually *fit* their need. Unfortunely there's a few companies/consultants whose business plan requires them to graze on the commons and get all in a huff when any of us tell them they're filtered because they are causing incremental damage to our networks. Get over it kids; stable and deterministic behavior is required for IP to work optimally. Stability uber alles, Joe -- Joe ProvoVoice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning Design Fax508.229.2375 Network Deployment Management, RCN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sprint peering policy
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote: I just checked Last-Modified on AADS' pricing page, and it looks like it was modified within two months of today. Assuming that prices are as current as the page starting at $4700/mo is indeed steep. The pricing is a bit steep, as is MAE pricing. However, when initially building a network and peering infrastructure isn't it usually expected that you be able to peer at MAE-WEST, MAE-EAST, and AADS? I've noticed that the trend is gradually shifting away from this, as more and more networks choose exchanges like Equinix to form their core exchange points. This brings up a question I've been wondering about for some time; How many of you with peering policies that require geographical diversity on public peering sessions specify exchange point presence requirements? How many of you still only have public peering at the MAEs and AADS? Joe
Re: Sprint peering policy
On 29 Jun 2002, 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: Do X and Y feel they derive equal value (for some value of equal) by interconnecting with each other? This incorrectly presumes that being equal is necessary, when in truth each party is going to have a threshold and method for determining the value of the exchange that is independent of the other parties preconceptions. Point in case, most networks care significantly more about what they get out of a peering session than what the their peers get out of it. And this is correct and valid because only by paying attention to the actual underlying economic reasons for making peering decisions will they be able to ensure they stay in business. 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. By your reasoning all ventures should be 50/50 partnerships, which they aren't. I'll concede if a network were to percieve themselves as a majority share holder and think themselves large enough to effect the underlying price of bandwidth in the market then they might focus primarily on how to prevent another network from making more money than them from a peering agreement, as you describe. However, based on all the bankruptcies they should be more focused on their own immediate operational costs and staying in business than worrying about any single competitor. X states that they would only feel equal value is derived by both parties if traffic between X and the other party is n mb/s with a ratio of p:q. Y disagrees. They do not interconnect. This causes pain. Again, this is proof of my first point above, that each network has its own method of evaluating peering and that their method matters more to them than what the peer thinks. to make sense of their peering policy, just accept the fact that each company has policies that they believe to be in their best interests and omit the pretense of justifying this by the movement of heavenly bodies in the spheres. I think we are in agreement here. I figured, I just couldn't let you get away with the equal remark lest onlookers pickup bad attitudes. :-P Mike. +--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
RE: Sprint peering policy
Ralph, Two points, here. One is, Sprint won't peer with you. I'm not even sure who you work for, but rest assured, they will not peer with you. Time spent on this might be better utilized reading some of Bill Norton's excellent intro to peering papers, or, if you work for a company that is truly serious about peering, you could hire an experienced peering engineer, to assist you with this. There are several that are currently available. The second point is, whomever you spoke to has violated a non-disclosure agreement, one that is normally taken seriously. I would tread carefully in this area, as it may get whomever you spoke with in a significant amount of trouble. Finally, I'm not sure why anyone would want to actually waste the time on this - there are numerous large tier 2 networks that are starting to get peering initiatives going. If you are large enough, I'm sure they would love to peer with you. Remember - peering that first 50% of your traffic is not that hard, if you have the resources, contacts and knowledge. It's that last bit that hurts. - Daniel Golding -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sprint peering policy Someone was kind enough to forward me an outline of the peering policy they received from Sprint. It seems to be the toughest one I've seen - =OC48 in 14 US cities, =OC12 to Europe. To find out the traffic minimums and ratios it looks like an NDA is required... Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com
RE: Sprint peering policy
I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my inital post I don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the rate OC48 prices are dropping maybe next year I will meet the requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers, WorldCom OC48's on sale in isle 5. ;-) The second point is, whomever you spoke to has violated a non-disclosure agreement, one that is normally taken seriously. I would tread carefully in this area, as it may get whomever you spoke with in a significant amount of trouble. I didn't post this until now since I was waiting for a couple opinions to verify that it was in fact genuine, and as well a public filing that anyone could get if they know where to dig at the FCC. http://ns.istop.com/~ralph/2000-04-13-sprint.pdf -Ralph
RE: Sprint peering policy
RD Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:57:59 -0400 (EDT) RD From: Ralph Doncaster RD I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my RD inital post I don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the RD rate OC48 prices are dropping maybe next year I will meet the RD requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers, WorldCom OC48's on RD sale in isle 5. ;-) Or, like Daniel mentioned, you could focus on those where you stand a chance of peering. Note that traffic requirements mean the more you peer with little guys, the harder it will be to peer with their upstreams. Pick a strategy and run with it. Being a broadband provider in SE Canada, I suggest sniffing out public peering in NYC and CHI for a start. IIRC, Hotmail and Y! are at AADS and will peer with most anyone -- there's a good chunk of traffic. Now Akamaize your network if you haven't already. It's fun to talk about infrastructure, but there comes a time where you draw the line, deciding what is real and what isn't... Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Sprint peering policy
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 02:57:59PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: I know Sprint won't peer with anyone small. I said in my inital post I don't stand a chance - but who knows, at the rate OC48 prices are dropping maybe next year I will meet the requirements. Attention K-Mart shoppers, WorldCom OC48's on sale in isle 5. ;-) When OC48s are cheap, the peering requirements will become OC192. It has nothing to do with the ability to support the traffic exchanged, but everything to do with excluding you from peering with them. A lot of networks are now running peering requirements so hard that almost none of their existing peers would qualify (including some well known tier 1's). The second point is, whomever you spoke to has violated a non-disclosure agreement, one that is normally taken seriously. I would tread carefully in this area, as it may get whomever you spoke with in a significant amount of trouble. I didn't post this until now since I was waiting for a couple opinions to verify that it was in fact genuine, and as well a public filing that anyone could get if they know where to dig at the FCC. http://ns.istop.com/~ralph/2000-04-13-sprint.pdf Note the date, February 8, 2000. Over 2 years later is an eternity in peering requirement land. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Sprint peering policy
The obstruction to the AGIS ASN was removed by the bankruptcy courts. ;-) --On Thursday, 27 June 2002 16:30 -0400 Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip This is not news. Remember when AGIS had peering requirements that AGIS could not meet? snip -- TTFN, patrick -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature? -- anon msg03094/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Sprint peering policy
At 08:00 PM 6/27/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: Pick a strategy and run with it. Being a broadband provider in SE Canada, I suggest sniffing out public peering in NYC and CHI for a start. IIRC, Hotmail and Y! are at AADS and will peer with most anyone -- there's a good chunk of traffic. Now Akamaize your network if you haven't already. I'm already working on NYC. For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would cost more than the long-haul back to Toronto. I also prefer ethernet peering instead of ATM. Equinix looks like the best option in Chicago, but most long-haul carriers are in 600 Federal and not 350 Cermak. As for Akamai, I've found very little of my traffic (5%) is Akamai. Akamai is at NYIIX anyway, so once I get into 25 Broadway I'd peer with them. Mind if I ask how you got the traffic stats for Akamai? -Ralph -- TTFN, patrick
RE: Sprint peering policy
RD Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:00:11 -0400 (EDT) RD From: Ralph Doncaster RD For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would cost more than RD the long-haul back to Toronto. Given as an example. However the cost/benefit plays out... RD I also prefer ethernet peering instead of ATM. Agreed. RD Equinix looks like the best option in Chicago, but most RD long-haul carriers are in 600 Federal and not 350 Cermak. For now, anyway. RD As for Akamai, I've found very little of my traffic (5%) is RD Akamai. Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what is your total traffic level, and how did you determine 5%? Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
RE: Sprint peering policy
I'm already working on NYC. For Chicago an OC3 connection to AADS would cost more than the long-haul back to Toronto. Interestingly, it's arguable that once you pay for the OC3 (let's say $5k, for sake of arguement) and the AADS port (another $5k), you're at $64/meg, and thats assuming a 95th utilization of 155. Assuming a more real world utilization of 120 mb/s, at best, you're at $83/meg, somewhat more expensive than what several providers are selling at these days. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
RE: Sprint peering policy
AR Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:53:44 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) AR From: Alex Rubenstein AR Assuming a more real world utilization of 120 mb/s, at best, At very best. ATM cell tax in mind, I'd expect lower. I just checked Last-Modified on AADS' pricing page, and it looks like it was modified within two months of today. Assuming that prices are as current as the page starting at $4700/mo is indeed steep. That same money buys a half rack and a ton of cross-connects at Equinix... Eddy -- Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Sprint peering policy
Sprint dont peer unless your the like of CW/UU etc Steve On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies, I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does anyone know what their peering requirements are? Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com
Re: Sprint peering policy
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:39:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies, I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does anyone know what their peering requirements are? sprintlink.net# grep peering /etc/aliases peering:/dev/null sprintlink.net# --msa
Re: Sprint peering policy
http://www.sprintlink.net/policy/index.html --what they publish $--what they don't jeff Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send. --Jon Postel - Original Message - From: Majdi S. Abbas [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ralph Doncaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 11:57 AM Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:39:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies, I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does anyone know what their peering requirements are? sprintlink.net# grep peering /etc/aliases peering: /dev/null sprintlink.net# --msa
RE: Sprint peering policy
Alex, *I* can't make any claims, since that would be making a forward-looking statement, y'know... and after today's WorldCom events, I can hardly say that trusting analysts is a good thing, but if you take the time to do some research on ALGX, you'll probably see things like: consistency in meeting Wall St. expectations, a stong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS), and a conservative balance sheet. We're talking about some experienced, reputable good ol' boys who know enough only acquire profitable businesses for pennies on the dollar, and only build from success-based capital. If you take a good, hard look at the company as a whole, you'll see a company that has yet to deviate from its original plan, regardless of economic climate, and will tell you is still on target for profitability. These are all things I've learned from my own due dilligence via research on the web, and I'm sure you'll find the same. -Dan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 1:08 PM To: Mitchell, Dan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy But that's just what I've heard. On a side note: Folks should keep an eye on Allegiance Internet (the folks I work for). They picked up the old Digex / Intermedia Business Internet backbone and are in the process of integrating it (under AS2548). Financially solid company, very easy to work with, and have some strong uptimes. On what basis do you claim that Allegiance Internet is going to be in business by end of the summer? Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:34:42PM -0400, Mitchell, Dan wrote: a strong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS) ^ `- I think you have mistaken this for an endorsement. And in the age of cooked books, stated revenue can be misleading, particularly when it looks too good to be true. I would be very wary of anyone in this business right now, particularly a CLEC. Regardless, I don't think shameless corporate plugs really belong on NANOG, but I'll allow that perhaps I am in the minority. --msa
RE: Sprint peering policy
RE: Majdi -- I just wanted to thoroughly address Alex's question. Besides, Allegiance *has* to make it, because I certainly can't go get a job at WCom anymore, can I? :-) dem -Original Message- From: Majdi S. Abbas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 2:48 PM To: Mitchell, Dan Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 02:34:42PM -0400, Mitchell, Dan wrote: a strong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS) ^ `- I think you have mistaken this for an endorsement. And in the age of cooked books, stated revenue can be misleading, particularly when it looks too good to be true. I would be very wary of anyone in this business right now, particularly a CLEC. Regardless, I don't think shameless corporate plugs really belong on NANOG, but I'll allow that perhaps I am in the minority. --msa
Re: Sprint peering policy
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:07:53 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On what basis do you claim that Allegiance Internet is going to be in business by end of the summer? The cynic in me started to say less indictments against upper management than their competitors. but then I realized that there may be more shoes waiting to drop... msg03033/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: Sprint peering policy
Alex, *I* can't make any claims, since that would be making a forward-looking statement, y'know... and after today's WorldCom events, I can hardly say that trusting analysts is a good thing, but if you take the time to do some research on ALGX, you'll probably see things like: consistency in meeting Wall St. expectations, a stong management team (after all, they *did* build MFS), and a conservative balance sheet. We're talking about some experienced, reputable good ol' boys who know enough only acquire profitable businesses for pennies on the dollar, and only build from success-based capital. If you take a good, hard look at the company as a whole, you'll see a company that has yet to deviate from its original plan, regardless of economic climate, and will tell you is still on target for profitability. These are all things I've learned from my own due dilligence via research on the web, and I'm sure you'll find the same. I know. It is going to be a localy company to add to WCOM, MFNXQ, ADELA, Q and others like that for exact reasons that you have listed. Cheers, Alex
Re: Sprint peering policy
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:39:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies, I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does anyone know what their peering requirements are? Sprint's peering policy (and associated requirements) are covered under NDA. Anyone who shares this information with an outside party would be in direction violation of their NDA. Have you contacted Sprint and asked this question of them? --Jeff
Re: Sprint peering policy
As I said your name must be CW or UUNET. Thats why its not publicised and under NDA, even if you think you meet their terms they can turn you down for no reason! Steve On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Jeff Aitken wrote: On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:39:11PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: While many other tier-1's have publicly listed their peering policies, I've never seen anything for 1239. Not that I'd stand a chance, but does anyone know what their peering requirements are? Sprint's peering policy (and associated requirements) are covered under NDA. Anyone who shares this information with an outside party would be in direction violation of their NDA. Have you contacted Sprint and asked this question of them? --Jeff
