Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: hardie () equinix com
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 18:27:13 -0700 (PDT)

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

David replies:
      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.


First, I'm not sure how these reasons relate to UUNET's direction
(downward spiral, up and to the right, quick-quick-slow).  Second,
many of them are based on presumptions that relate to past
performance, with no guarantee of future results.  This is especially
true if you consider traffic exchange to occupy more than two points
on the spectrum than just Free---Paid Transit.

For example, 1) has historically been true when BarNet is not paid for
taking your traffic; it may value it for other reasons
(content/eyeballs), but unless it is paid it is hard to get resources
for link or equipment upgrades.  In paid peering, it is paid to take
your traffic and is likely to take seriously performance degradation
or failure; whether you do is, of course up to you.  So it may make
more sense to enter a paid peering agreement with BarNet than to use
transit through FooNet to get to them.

Similarly, 3) has the interesting assumption that you are not using
BGP to talk to FooNet, which will not be the case if you have a
multi-homed transit arrangement aside from the peering to BarNet.  4)
and 2) contain some interesting assumptions about meeting points and
the topological relationships among FooNet, BarNet and the customer
network.  4) seems to assume, for example, that more of BarNet's
effort goes into a private connect to FooNet than to the public
connect at BazNAP.  Could be true; could be entirely the other way

As David's post points out, though, there is no easy assumption about
what is going to be best.  I think the Internet is actually best served
by having lots of available of choices for how to interconnect.  That
way, when your mileage varies, there is something you can do about it.

                                Ted Hardie

Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employer.  This disclaimer is,
however, included solely for the amusement of Stephen Stuart; any
other use may be a violation of his rights to amusement.

  By Date           By Thread  

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