|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
Karl Denninger <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to >> subsidies from large peers to small. >No they're not. The load which the small provider presents to you (in the >form of traffic to your CUSTOMERS) is miniscule by comparison. Small providers outnumber large providers by quite a lot. In fact, most traffic is generated by customers of small ISPs. >Finally, and FAR more importantly, the REASON you're having the traffic >dumped to you is that *YOUR CUSTOMER IS PAYING YOU TO GET IT TO THEM*. The customers are paying for connectivity to other customers, not for connectivity to ISPs. They don't care less if their peer is connected to a small or a large ISP. >If you refuse to perform that job, then your customer should find someone >who will actually live up to the letter and spirit of what your customer >is purchasing from you. I do not think that leftish political activists and radical idealists are a large segment of market. The rest would simply go to a provider who sells better and cheaper connectivity, without worrying too much about figures on the provider's balance sheet. > That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument: > > Big Provider > Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP] > | > IXP > | > Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP] > Small Provider > > When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through > 1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile. >So what? Customer A paid you to get the traffic to him. Now, if Big Provider competes for customer B it'll have to sell service for cost of 500 miles, whereas Small Provider can sell is for the cost of 1 mile. The situation is the same at Customer A's location (where Small ISP #2 operates). Now, the traffic between Small ISPs #1 and #2 is close to non-existent; so they simply dump 99.9% of traffic to the Big ISP at exchange points and do transit over a cheap low-bandwidth line they buy from the same or other Big ISP. Essentially, they get benefits of global infrastructure without contributing anything to it. Of course, large ISPs then have to pass the costs to customers, placing them at a competitive disadvantage. >It is in your best interest to do it. You got paid to do this. If you >can't, Customer A will find Big Provider #2 (or Small Provider #2) who >will. That is not happening now. Sprint tested waters back then with CIX, and the expected negative customer response was zero, nada, nil, zilch. Which only confirms that customers do not care about particular ISP's, they only care about bits getting delivered. >The first time you tell a CUSTOMER as "Big provider" that "the reason you >can't reach Customer B, who you think is important, is because they aren't >connected to us and their provider won't *pay us to transport YOUR DATA* you >are going to find out, quickly, what the Customer's response to that is. Huh? The small ISP (Mukhosransknet, for example) who can't reach Sprint or UUNET or BBN is bust by definition. The large ISP who can't reach the same small ISP doesn't suffer at all -- chances are that nobody will ever notice. So the small ISP is forced to buy connectivity to the Big ISP, and the problem (from the point of view of the Big ISP's customers) is fixed. That's particularly true because most small ISPs do not provide any popular content, so customers of big ISPs have little reason to worry about unreacheability of small ISPs . >You might find out from their corporate counsel; if not, you'll definitely >find out from their purchasing department (or person) -- when they cancel >your service and move somewhere else. How idealistic. Customers terminate service all the time for a million of various reasons. Somehow more customers are subscribing, so those departments just don't care. >Second, if Small Provider who *does* have capacity to that exchange point >finds out what you're up to, expect to have that widely used in press >materials and marketing efforts. Just to have it pointed out that this is a free country and that large ISPs have right to make their own business decisions? You cannot make anti-trust case because there _is_ a competition among a number of large ISPs. It's not like one large ISP opressing all others. It's more like reach "oppressing" the poor by refusing to give away their assets to any tramp from a street. Sure, such a press campaighn is possible, and will attract some attention from leftist fringe. The level-headed people would take it to reflect on the respectability and the agenda of the campaighner. > Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too > more important things like hosting of information suppliers. > Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts > 1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to > the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's > customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%. >Not if you're a customer of Big Provider and want to get there. Your >provider either PROVIDES or you find someone who will. Find me a person who wants to look at Mukhosransk's city council web page. >You seem to forget the middle letter of ISP is *SERVICE*. You want to >talk to someone with a valid IP address on the Internet, your PROVIDER is >responsible for seeing that you can get to an exchange point where can be >found the network that serves them. Ah, what a bunch of rhetoric. >BOTH providers have an obligation here, and its not to each other. Its to >their CUSTOMERS. Obligation to whom? To the Supreme Deity of All Networks? Or the ghost of Comrade Lenin? That obligation is certainly not in service contracts. >If the receiving network then refuses to accept the traffic destined for >a customer WHO IS PAYING THEM TO TRANSPORT IT, the customer on that end >has a very legitimate beef with their provider and IMHO has every right to >walk away and possibly even sue, contract or no (the provider just breached >their material obligations). You may want to take a look at a service contract someday. There's not even a remote hint of implicit or explicit obligation to provide universal connectivity. If _you_ sell service with obligation to provide universal connectivity, i (and my lawyer) want to sign up. He (the lawyer) just loves to shake damages from likes of companies which promise Harriers for $100000. Can you statements in this public forum to be construed as an official position of MCSNET? >Anyone short-sighted enough who fails to understand that bilateral, >no-settlement PEERING (*NOT* transit) is in everyone's best interest >deserves what the market does to them. Sorry, buddy, i'm not interested in everyone's best interest. I just don't care about everyone. I'm admittedly interested in the bottom line in my account statement. I wouldn't expect large ISPs to do differently. After all, they exist to generate profit. If they would start doing charity and brotherhood of all people stuff instead of business their shareholders will be rightfully upset. >>I presume that (1) the people you peer with are clueful and don't do stupid >things on a regular basis, (2) they don't try to point default at you, etc. >That's a given in these discussions. I wouldn't trust people who can't comprehend realities of everyday life to have a clue about routing. --vadim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|