mailing list archives
RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: "David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 20:19:46 -0700
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.
No, I'm assuming you *must* have BGP sessions to everyone you get peering
or transit from. The more places you peer with, the more BGP sessions you
are going to have.
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
That's not quite the assumption. It really is that more effort goes into a
private connect to FooNet than to the public connect at BazNAP as it applies
to your particular connection. They might monitor their BazNAP connection
closely, but not be particularly concerned if they notice possible problems
with a smaller peering connection -- especially if they don't charge for it.
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.
Well, I won't argue with that.
Another possible disadvantage with 'free' peering is you may have a harder
time getting the larger companies to deal with issues that arise surrounding
that peering. They may feel they have no financial incentive to worry about
it, and you really have no contractual leverage to get, for example,
response time guarantees.
Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Owen DeLong (May 07)
RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? Barrows, Jeff (May 07)