Leber
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:08 PM
To: Paul Vixie
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AOL Cogent
[SNIP]
To illustrate how moores law and the hypothetical end user
bandwidth demand law are different, for anybody that has
upgraded their personal workstation to twice
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 09:45:21PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
2. I think I asked this before, why wouldn't Cogent prepend
customer prefixes to Level3 or set BGP4 community for multihomed sites,
homed w/ Cogent + someone else.
You got your answer to this before, what part
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 05:37:10AM -0600, Basil Kruglov wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 09:45:21PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
2. I think I asked this before, why wouldn't Cogent prepend
customer prefixes to Level3 or set BGP4 community for multihomed sites,
homed w/ Cogent +
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 08:14:45AM -0500, Omachonu Ogali wrote:
For my not-so-bright customers I simply want traceroutes to look good when
they run one from Level3-homed site. Obviously a ~5-7 hops to us looks
really disturbing, try to explain to one of them that there is no problem.
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind
of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
This depends on how you define business decision. I view a business
Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look really good?
At 9:50 -0500 12/30/02, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +, Paul
Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind
of sense.
Thus spake David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look
really good?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INAPd=t
EPS (ttm) -1.23 -- triple their current share price -- doesn't make their
business model look so hot.
S
Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy
thing we all run work. As we've seen with companies like PSI, those
who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up dead.
no part of worldcom's failure traces to uunet's decision to restrict
their peering back in
Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look
really good?
i think it's just you.
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 06:37, Basil Kruglov wrote:
For my not-so-bright customers I simply want traceroutes to look good when
they run one from Level3-homed site. Obviously a ~5-7 hops to us looks
really disturbing, try to explain to one of them that there is no problem.
After some off-list
JSW Date: 30 Dec 2002 13:59:40 -0500
JSW From: Jeff S Wheeler
JSW So the obvious solution is to prepend your advertisements
JSW toward cogent, which will cause them to carry less of your
JSW inbound traffic.
...although the exact effects depend on your particular mix of
upstreams. LOCAL_PREF
On 30 Dec 2002, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 06:37, Basil Kruglov wrote:
For my not-so-bright customers I simply want traceroutes to look good when
they run one from Level3-homed site. Obviously a ~5-7 hops to us looks
really disturbing, try to explain to one of them
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind
of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
This depends on how
Basil,
If you recall, we talked about purchasing cogent access from you quite
some time ago, as Five Elements is also in the Switch Data facility.
If you need somewhere to off-load your AOL-bound traffic, we have some
excess Aleron transit, and they have AOL peering of some sort right in
The perceived money on the table frequently doesn't exist and attempts
to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market
you want to be in.
On Sun, 2002-12-29 at 15:57, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Basil,
Oops. Obviously, I posted this to the list by mistake.
But in any case, for those of you who are relying upon cogent pricing
to make your business model work, it should be easy to figure out that
at some point, you might start getting
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
The perceived money on the table frequently doesn't exist and attempts
to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY,
... if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get
peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for high tier network
owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point
operators. ...
Well, I think as a local operator you can not expect to be able to
peer with
Well, if L3 is a transit provider, would it not make sense for them
to increase the peering pipes in order to bill their customers more?
I am sure there are some smiles there right now.
At 20:24 -0600 12/28/02, Basil Kruglov wrote:
Speaking of this whole Cogent/AOL/Level3 mess.. sigh.
I got
I love that Paul can be correct in an email and still make me smile.
The smile was the 1000x growth in internet traffic in a year.
Paul is right, this is a business case. Since most people in the
thread already make great points, I wont rehash them. I think this
is a standard peering
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
per-bit revenue for high tier network owners would turn into per-port
revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how
I think you just answered your own question. Exchange point operations.
could a high tier
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
The perceived money on the table frequently doesn't exist and attempts
to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying
only be on the difference.
That is, say it was 1500 Mbps Cogent-AOL, and 500Mbps AOL-Cogent.
The first 1000 Mbps (2x500, 2:1 ratio), Cogent-AOL should be
free, as they would be if there was less traffic. Charging for
the extra 500, while not something I advocate, would be fair.
To make
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 04:43:18PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
- Peering should cost significantly less than transit. At least
half, probably less. If you have 1.5 Gig, getting $50 a meg
transit is trivial today. I can't imagine any company paying
$50 a meg for peering, no matter
In a message written on Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 05:52:30PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
- Peering should cost significantly less than transit. At least
half, probably less. If you have 1.5 Gig, getting $50 a meg
transit is trivial today. I can't imagine any company paying
$50
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:34:01 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
All in all, I find ratios an extremely poor way of validating a
peer. I can think of many cases where it is in both parties interest
to peer, but where the traffic might be extremely unbalanced. Yes,
the fact that it is unbalanced can
Speaking of this whole Cogent/AOL/Level3 mess.. sigh.
I got tired of trying getting anything out of Cogent. So, here's list of
questions perhaps someone might be able to answer.
1. I'm sure some of you are customers of Level3, and I'm sure
you do see 1-2 sec latency w/ Cogent, what's the
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 08:24:16PM -0600, Basil Kruglov wrote:
2. I think I asked this before, why wouldn't Cogent prepend
customer prefixes to Level3 or set BGP4 community for multihomed sites,
homed w/ Cogent + someone else.
You got your answer to this before, what part wasn't clear?
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Consider this example: If I buy 100Mbit of transit from
AboveNet in IAD, odds are you're gonna peer off 75% of
my traffic locally, without it ever having touched
expensive longhaul circuits. If I buy 100Mbit of paid
peering, odds are you're
... trying to even out a perceived inequity ...
peering is a business decision. if it's possible to force another network
into the role of customer, then that's seen by many as good business since
revenue increases. paid peering or even settlements are not about
inequity, perceived or
Old rules, modern peering decisions arent made with such common sense ideas in
mind but based on power play and a desire for everyone to be your customer!
Because investing in building a network is expensive and with the
push to reduce transit costs the revenue gap has to be made up
somewhere
That's actually an interesting thought. From AOLs perspective it
mght be cheaper to buy transit from L3 then peering with so many
people especialy privately. Ports do cost money. From the business
perspective I think Bill Norton has shown that sometimes transit
might be more attractive
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Andrew Partan
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 2:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: AOL Cogent
I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL
and ran into some interesting
this at the moment with an operator, we host content their access
customers use and have requested improved connectivity to, I see this provider
via mutual transit.. they wont peer.
Your analysis of the AOL/Cogent situation suggests we're not fully aware of the
facts, either that or they really
If I were Level3, I'd give them (cogent) a bigger peering pipe, and take the
money from the larger, more stable company AOL... Might not be common
peering sense, but damn good business sense
Further, if L3/Cogent are settlement-free and both parties are interested
in growing the size of
I was poking around to see what was happening with Cogent and AOL
and ran into some interesting info.
The test that Cogent failed was a 2:1 ratio; Cogent was at 3:1 and
AOL insisted they be at no more than 2:1 for free peering.
AOL wants Cogent to pay for peering - the pricing I've heard is
36 matches
Mail list logo
