RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?

[Dave Van Allen <dave () fast net>]

Gordon,

Lack of a global undisciplined peering and charging more for connections
to "customer - ISP's" do not go hand-in-hand.

Net Glossary (for effect):

Bi-lateral: You both offer each other equality in important areas.

Non-Binding: I woke up on the wrong side of the bed - See Ya!

MAE/NAP: A place to trade better connectivity under certain conditions
of equality - OR a place to run default free until I get caught.


I believe that this is purely a model of economics, progressiveness and
network protection.  UUNet, MCI, and Sprint for the most part have
always been the networks that were desirable to peer with at meet
points. In the beginning, it was relatively easy to make that happen if
you as a smaller network had the money to get to an appropriate NAP/MAE.
You had to have a technical competency level, sales pitch and possible
friend-in-the-biz to help you along, and if you had those things, you
effectively had the secret handshake and you were in.

Just because something like this worked in the past, doesn't mean that
it will work in the future, and today is the future.

The big Net's have been engineering private exchange points to move away
from the mess at the MAE's for a while now.  This should have been
"Ah-Ha #1". Next, the newest NAPS don't have the level of Big Net
participation as perhaps everyone thought they would, this should have
been "Ah-Ha #2". And finally, with all of the rumor (and resulting fact)
that "Net A, B and C will only peer with you if you are at X, Y and Z at
OC-48 <g>" should have been "Ah-Ha #3"

It's my opinion that it should come as no surprise that a change is
being made in the way the Net carries data.  This is like any business,
you must be good at prediction and you must be good at picking your
suppliers.  If you did not predict this (and don't have a fall-back
plan), then you probably won't be able to predict the next major obvious
event. If you think that your suppliers will provide you with favorable
terms - make sure you have a plan when and if those terms change.

 
Best regards,

David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm)
dave () fast net (610) 289-1100  http://www.fast.net
FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook () netaxs com]
> Sent:  Friday, May 02, 1997 11:51 PM
> To:    Dave Van Allen
> Cc:    'Stephen Balbach'; 'nanog () merit edu'; 'inet-access () earth com';
> 'dave () oldcolo com'
> Subject:       RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging
> under non-disclosure?
>
> when they clean out all the competing backbones what is to prevent thenm
> from doubling and then tripling your charges Dave?
>
> ************************************************************************
> The COOK Report on Internet               For subsc. pricing & more than
> 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA     ten megabytes of free material
> (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)              visit   http://cookreport.com/
> Internet: cook () cookreport com             On line speech of critics under
> attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml
> ************************************************************************
>
>
> On Fri, 2 May 1997, Dave Van Allen wrote:
>
> > Well said!
> >
> > Gee, you mean that this *is* really a business??
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm)
> > dave () fast net (610) 289-1100  http://www.fast.net
> > FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From:       Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen () clark net]
> > > Sent:       Friday, May 02, 1997 6:43 AM
> > > To: Gordon Cook
> > > Cc: nanog () merit edu; inet-access () earth com; dave () oldcolo com
> > > Subject:    Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with
> > charging
> > > under non-disclosure?
> > >
> > >
> > > > First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who?
> > > > MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their
> > > > markets.......... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against
> > the
> > > > wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on?   Those ISPs who did
> > > > not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck
> > in
> > > > the second or the third round?
> > >
> > > The only thing UUNET is cutting is Internet trees, and there are some who 
> > > are protesting by hugging them. Clear out the chaff for next seasons 
> > > crops. 
> > >
> > > Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct
> > > from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone
> > > and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats,
> > > it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model. 
> > >
> > >
> > > .stb
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -