Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
From: Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 17:20:26 +0100



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

Is this just an opinion, or do you have evidence?

A genuine impartial economic analysis of this issue would be
very interesting, and probably even more interesting to the
regulators. I would hope any such analysis will include cost
of maintenance and stability of networks with n interconnects
as n increases.

Most regulation theory looks to minimize customer price
over the long term. This does not necessarilly mean maximizing
competion (though it normally but not always means no monopolies).

European regulation in this area (yes it exists) focusses only on those
with Significant Market Power (variously defined but normally
25% or above of the 'Relevant Market'), and suggests that their
interconnect policies should be non-discriminatory and cost-oriented.
In my book that means that A has 30,000 routes of 100,000, and B has
2 routes, then B is paying A. (before saying that 'but B would
charge A too' remember that A probably has the opportunity to
exchange data via B's transit, at, no doubt, a lower cost per bit).
In the mean time their view is, in general, that if what you
say is true (downward spiral etc.) because their peering
policy is suboptimal, then this just allows some competitor
with a more optimal peering policy to gain competitive advantage.

IMHO there is a high correlation between people claiming
strong peering policies are 'bad for the internet' and
those recently refused peering. Thus data samples are
somewhat skewed.

--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity



  By Date           By Thread  

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