Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: "David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 16:42:00 -0700



I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong
peering policies are not good for the Internet.

Greetz, Peter.

        I'm not so sure that's true. Personally, I think the Internet is better
served by having a smaller number of larger and better maintained meeting
places than by just having a large number of peering points were everyone
connects to everybody else.

        Here are just a few reasons why, for example, it's better if you use
transit to FooNet to reach BarNet rather than BarNet peering with you
directly (assuming you are not too big yourself):

        1) FooNet and BarNet are more likely to keep their peering points scaled to
handle the load than you are. They are more likely to monitor performance
and shut down failures.

        2) FooNet and BarNet will meet at more places than you will meet BarNet,
allowing traffic to get off the source network faster and providing better
fault tolerance.

        3) Fewer BGP sessions means faster convergence and less instability.

        4) You may be more likely to meet BarNet at public peering points while
FooNet is more likely to meet BarNet at private peering points. Your traffic
to BarNet will get the benefit of the higher amounts of effort FooNet and
BarNet will put into keeping their meeting points efficient.

        DS



  By Date           By Thread  

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