|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Peering versus Transit
> Matt Zimmerman <[email protected]> writes: > > because you're using THEIR resources to do so, without > > explicit permission from them. > > That's a repetition of the same position that's been stated over and > over, without justification. If A sends to B directly in the absence > of an advertised route, A is "stealing" resources from B. If B sends > to A indirectly through A's transit provider, then B is "stealing" > resources from A. What makes the former case worse in your mind than > the latter, when it results in higher reliability, lower cost, and a > sounder architecture? Think of it this way: Contractual =========== When you peer with someone, you form a contract (whether written or unwritten is for these purposes irrelevant). This says "I will not send you traffic other than to routes that you advertise". Often the legalese behind these in written contracts is amusing, but one thing that is consitent is they use a default route as an example, not as the be all and end all. So if you send traffic to unadvertised destinations, you are in breach of contract. If the ISP concerned wants to avoid a "sounder architecture" (read: "doesn't design his network the way you want him to"), tough luck, you should have agreed something else at the time of the peer. These days peering agreements are business deals. They happen to be business deals that have $0 attached to them for all sorts of reasons Sean D et al explained far more eloquently than I could, but they are still business agreements. Just like any other contract, be in breach at your peril. Which leaves the case where you send traffic to say ISP X *without* any form of peering agreement with ISP X. Contracts with the IXP should prevent this from happening. If you try this, I hope they filter your MAC address. Technical ========= X Y | | ISP A -------------------------- ISP A \ / IXP 1 IXP 2 / \ ISP B ISP C \ / \ / \ISP B-------------------- Let's assume A is a large provider (Sprint/MCI etc) and B is C's transit provider. Let's assume lines between IXP A and IXP B cost a significant amount of money. A may wish only to advertise customers such as Y to C, but not customers such as X as they would otherwise use an expensive resource which C would be paying for. They might wish not to peer with C at all, as they might prefer to interchange traffic with B at IXP 1. But the key point is that as A is paying for the infrastructure, it is up to A to decide how they want it utilised. Sure, you may think it's not the most efficient way to move packets about - if so, go find some capital and set up in competition; good luck - IMHO with open IXP membership the internet would not be scalable without peering policies, and I say this as someone who normally suffers from them rather than enforces them. Alex Bligh Xara Networks - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|