Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: Tony Mumm <tonym () netins net>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 02:44:21 -0500



I feel I have to comment on the second point of your e-mail. It makes clear points as the how each provider is going to take full responsibility for their peering decisions.

I have seen a trend where Tier 1's (nation-wide large carriers - don't want to debate the term too much) are willing to offer transit contracts to regional or tier2 nationals at cost, or only at a very small margin. This move by C&W to begin charging for those providers seems to be a very large departure from this method.

As we all know, the value of the big player, is how many people they are connected to. It seems that providers are willing to take a a risk by either peering or selling very cheap transit in order to appear as a well connected ISP to the rest of the Internet.

My concern now, after reading this, is how do I know value the ISPs that I buy transit from. What is the guarantees that I have that the bandwidth I expect from a transit carrier is going to be maintained.

I have been a long time customer of C&W well into the MCI days. While I have had my difficulties, I feel that they have been a solid carrier. However, it has been a struggle lately to keep more and more traffic on their backbone. This whole thread seems to be the cause.

In summary, my question is this:

        Does a peering policy like this make sense?

My answer to this is: It may, but it is forsaking two different types of customers. The first, the tier 1/2 customers that is now enforcing a tariff against. The second, regional carriers that can no longer afford to purchase second rate transit.

So, how can I justify paying C&W for this bandwidth that day by day may be losing value.

I'd be interested to hear how many people that feel that C&W's decisions affects their direction for connectivity.

Tony

On Sunday, May 6, 2001, at 01:27 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:




2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves?

#2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here.
It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt
them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of
heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood.
Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf
Of Richard A. Steenbergen
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM
To: John Payne
Cc: David Schwartz; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?



On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:

On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
    Not so fast. While each of his customers is more
inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers.
The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced
multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be
nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has
someone else to blame.

That depends.  Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be
transit free... so there isn't really a hole created.  Sure, the
smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than
peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other
than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering
points.

The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is
the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but
I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question
would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all
likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and
to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know
if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a
low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or
relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the
other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will
be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is
whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got
for free.

Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless
peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic
would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant
reduction in
congestion then there must have been a significant amount of
traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the
biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War
(http://www.pimpwar.com). :P

--
Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
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)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBOvTu2X/79ekXZHvJEQLv5ACbBJdomK1cyrjHSTjcebVjxpMqEIsAn0M0
h9TaLbNrdaV6wIFgdi1PCp0l
=JYUx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault