Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On 5/4/06, Aaron Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why would anyone do that? --bill Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than they would for simple transit. aaron.glenn John: Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing than speaking... Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit vs. best effort peering? Even that has some issues, the one that jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below: AS#x $--SLA--Transit ok... But... AS#x $--SLA--Transit -(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA--- My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA that you would be paying, since after that the packet switches to no money packets on a paid connection, pushing out the issue for things sent down that pipe... Peter Cohen
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On 5/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] karoshi.com wrote: why would anyone do that? Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing than speaking... My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA that you would be paying, since after that the packet switches to no money packets on a paid connection, pushing out the issue for things sent down that pipe... Are you saying that there *IS* a good reason why anyone would buy paid transit from all SFP providers? And that the reason is so that you have a contractual SLA with all of those providers? If so then two questions come to mind. Couldn't you achieve the same thing by having paid peering with the SFP providers? Assuming that you do have contractual service with all of the SFP providers and that there is an SLA in all of those contracts, how do you deal with the fact that there is no SLA (to you) on packets which leave the set of SFP networks? Packets could leave by going to a transit customer of an SFP network or by going to a non-SFP peer of an SFP network. Quite frankly, while terminology like transit, settlement free peering and paid peering are useful to analyze and talk about network topography, I don't think they are useful by themselves when making purchase decisions. They need to be backed up with some hard technical data about the network in question as well as the contractual terms (transit or peering) in place. It is not possible to say that a given network architecture is BETTER if you only know the transit/peering arrangements between that network and some subset of the other network operators. SFP operators will always be a subset of the entire public Internet. Membership in that set changes from time to time for various reasons. And the importance of non-members also varies from time to time, especially content-provider networks. --Michael Dillon P.S. I purposely did not use the term tier because I do not believe that current usage of this term refers to network architecture. It has more to do with market dominance than anything else and even there it is relative because there is no longer a single Internet access market.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On 5/5/06, Peter Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing than speaking... Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit vs. best effort peering? Even that has some issues, the one that jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below: AS#x $--SLA--Transit ok... But... AS#x $--SLA--Transit -(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA--- My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA that you would be paying, You can't *guarantee* better service once the packet leaves your provider's upstream ASs. However, there are hardware-appliance and connectivity vendors who make it their job to come very close, as long as the far-end network has at least one good, near-end reachable path. That's where the concept of route control (where BGP, with all the modern weighting frills, is not the final arbiter of route decisions) comes into play. Extending that concept, if *both* ends have some sort of route control in place, via the same vendor or not, you're even more likely to get good service quality even if the SFI providers in the middle suck at any given time. (ObAdvertisingSquelch: I have direct involvement in this subject, so I won't discuss vendor names on-list to avoid conflict of interest.) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
At 07:48 AM 5/5/2006, Peter Cohen wrote: On 5/4/06, Aaron Glenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why would anyone do that? --bill Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than they would for simple transit. aaron.glenn John: Hopefully this comes out clearly, as writing can be more confusing than speaking... Are you getting at Inter AS /SLA/QOS that you would get from transit vs. best effort peering? Even that has some issues, the one that jumps out to me is hopefully clearly stick figure-diagrammed below: AS#x $--SLA--Transit ok... But... AS#x $--SLA--Transit -(second hop)--Customers/Peers---No Qos/SLA--- My point is it is hard to do anything beyond the first AS# for any SLA that you would be paying, since after that the packet switches to no money packets on a paid connection, pushing out the issue for things sent down that pipe... Peter Cohen It was not about the SLA, although in theory, buying transit should give the provider more incentive to help. The off-list discussion was more about avoiding the dependency problem of peerings. A good peering involves multiple points of geographically diverse interconnections. The number and location of these interconnections would depend on the unique combination of architectures of the two peers. If an AS does not have the traffic levels to justify multiple connections into a neighboring AS, relying on a single interconnection point is a problem. Even if the interconnection does not go down, it might not be a good way to reach particular networks in the other AS. Instead, it might be wiser to tune traffic via a different neighbor using transit. In other words, it gives you the best of both worlds. Most traffic travels directly to/from the SFP provider that serves the corresponding networks (like a peer). However, one can use the transit option at will for particular routes. And, one can use transit via the other SFPs should any transit to an SFP fail (fiber cut, etc.) Given that transit is pretty cheap, it seems more cost effective, at lower traffic levels, to purchase single transit interconnections to all the SFPs than attempt true peering at a much larger number of interconnections to those same SFPs. This is getting pretty theoretical, but I was curious if such a business model was attempted. The original SAVVIS did this in part long ago, but to just three neighbors. (I think they are now part of CW now...I can't keep track of all these mergers.) It sounds like Internap is pretty close to this model, although I don't believe they have transit to all nine (if my SFP count is correct). John
Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that? --bill
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Internap?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that?--bill Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Internap?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that?--bill How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
At 12:57 PM 5/4/2006, Jon Lyons wrote: Internap? Yes. That's what I was thinking, but too easy? -M -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by Tier 1. ;-) We do buy from a number of providers, many of which would be considered Tier 1 by many people. On Thu, 4 May 2006, Jon Lyons wrote: Internap? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that? --bill - Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
On 5/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why would anyone do that? --bill Some companies feel entitled to charging more for their routes than they would for simple transit. aaron.glenn
