-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/16/2010 01:01 PM, jp wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:56:11AM -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote: >> Let's get some data around this. How many WISPS here have tried to peer? >> With whom? On what terms? I know Akamai has traffic commits. Do the >> other players? Let's start some open dialog and as an industry leverage >> our collective bargaining power to peer. Generic hand waving and saying >> "big boys won't let us in the sandbox" doesn't work for me as an >> operator. I like specifics. > > I've peered in the past with an ISP because we both were part of a > statewide frame relay network and it was just the cost of a PVC to do > it.
It's not about access networks peering. That's usually not worth the effort for the reasons you outlined below. It's about peering with the content provider networks. > > The current impediments to small ISPs peering are: > 1. BGP skills and hardware. It used to be the only reliable thing for > BGP was a big cisco decked out with overpriced ram. Now anyone can do > BGP private peering with a PC running MT/vyatta/linux or an > MT routerboard, or their cisco or their juniper. Still, few have BGP > experience to do this comfortably. The level of effort is hopefully nothing more the a textbook templatized config that connects you to the fabric. The talent is in running the fabric. > > You can get the talent in socal, but it's not nationwide. People could > hire Butch or someone on guru.com to setup bgp, but they like to have > the self sufficiency to DIY in many cases. I've probably met face to > face all the people in my state who are proven BGP skillful and it's not > a lot. Yeah it's a small subset for sure. > > 3. decreasing uplink costs. Used to be you'd do anything to save a > precious megabit and peering was one such thing. I had a satellite > receiver system for receive usenet to offload the bandwidth back in > 97ish. Now it's just outsourced. We used to cache a lot more web traffic > too. Now it's helpful but not so important. If there were an occasional > megabit of traffic going to another local ISP, I wouldn't really > consider it worth the effort of peering. I would suspect most of the > traffic between WISPs is email and a little random p2p, and perhaps some > vpn activity between employees and businesses that use different service > providers. The peers despite the extreme minimalist financial investment > should be more reliable than the uplink to make good sense as well. Again it's not about access networks. It's about content networks and access networks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNCowSAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt4b8P/1q3iJwv42KpEFBWeBy6GFZv huZVjXh/XWPCLSjcJPpQPGeRFZx2/D6yw6oMP+XRMt0DxlS6/bHM2EXbK+rStTwI tyfNc4jTvEBdvIjLAbDnmGI1YNl0xcfrU+9Ch/YG/qV0i6sDkdFPw7W9Se6e4LQZ PW43mxT+stAxrtw42+xR+qJA1bmH5VfekM7oECasT/Lbd0NdrnMqeRdattLzMyaq D1pQRZ6v9cYSMOjKmdPS9EIF96TeqVe8MEfnVT7SD4oyaW6JAX5t3lh2x3+4NoOX zDcqKGR98CXkpgql66hCZpvTNSaQOp1iWOICpMFUG/47maUNc3PU7Sae5dwGgHOA 1d3jcH7MCbaCQB1rLeWx0OBHyz6TmYfbnekJxbceJyPIO1BK9aoe2pB4OpB9gcNK db44Us79VwmaxK2pAqxkjpp8NiTC7uNwOTbYCs38KVY96N/hvhAjdjI5pFH6ff+K mL8GEp7yWP/9MhYQJAakPtLQY8KDWo27pT+iYM+pUzmsz9cPAHNDGFMjCFdEucu8 ibh0nqkp4N3r5opP+qNkHaDG0Sb+B2/t7KZnMWpiBzcnaD+7gY6GEgffOrN5ydOZ RcJTOMRSe4eN4uBsAQY1rT94oXN3SC+ZpTMIZVkeYd0R43A2lGBLFXG93fAVfCtJ p2nENREpFic4Sth2ZvJ1 =9aVZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
