Peering versus Transit

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson () greendragon com>]

It has appeared to me for some time (and I've mentioned it before) that
peering "restrictions" have gotten completely out of hand.  I believe
this is because terminology and agreements for "peering" and "transit"
have become ill defined.

I can see no justification under any circumstances why any provider
would refuse to peer with another at an established exchange point for
exchanging their _own_ customers' traffic!

But note: this should not mean transit to others who are not customers
of the provider, or to other exchange points around the world.

I firmly believe that this is where the current model has gone awry.

Worse, the current technology used at the exchange points could
encourage abuse.  What is to stop anyone connected to an exchange from
simply dumping packets anonymously at the link level into the various
inter-exchange providers' routers and getting free transit?

Instead of negotiating with other providers for inter-exchange transit,
I advocate that each attachment to an exchange negotiate with the
exchange _operator_ for transit to other exchanges, and the exchange
negotiate with inter-exchange providers for the aggregate.

Separating the peering from transit provides greater clarity in
agreements, with opportunity for better quality monitoring and control,
while promoting greater redundancy in the Internet mesh, and greater
competition in the inter-exchange transit market.

                                ----

Until this happens, in the case in point, I would recommend that
Wonderland (an org, not a net?) has no _transit_ peering to offer
Sprint "in kind", as Sprint likely already has enough transit agreements
to reach those same exchanges.  Wonderland might have better spent its
$5M+ per annum obtaining service from an existing trans-atlantic
provider, or cooperating with another provider to join multiple links
under existing transit agreements with Sprint and others, thereby
reducing the trans-atlantic congestion.


> From: Peter Galbavy <peter () wonderland org>
> > Besides, most of the major providers previously based the bulk of
> > their peering 'requirements' on how many DS3s you had.  Now most
> > 'major' providers seem to have gone cold turkey.  MCI, Sprint, and
> > UUNET told me they won't peer with *anyone* new.
>
> But seriously, lets face it, DS3's are "cheap" and these people
> want more customes no freeloaders. Like us, who are paying $5M+ a
> year for a trans-atlantic DS3 and Sprint are very insistant that
> we build a US network based on DS3s to peer with them, even with
> the obvious fact that we have no US customers and have already paid
> for a connection which in reality should be matched by the large
> US carriers, rather than taking the piss once you have this
> investment. I only mention Sprint, since the others you mention
> are a tad more sensible, but still slow, while Sprint are in a
> glacier.

WSimpson () UMich edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson () MorningStar com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -