North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Peering is a lot of work.

  • From: Justin W. Newton
  • Date: Tue Oct 29 15:16:55 1996

At 10:25 AM 10/29/96 -0800, Kent W. England wrote:
> But that 
>still begs the question of adequate defenses against default-pointing and 
>other bad effects and the business plan which still calls for all of this
>to go away.


One can point default at someone whether or not they are peering with the
person.  I am somewhat confused by the thought that people believe that
they need to be peering with someone to have that person point default at
them.  I could (I don't, but I could), point default at /anyone/ on the
same switch fabric as me, whether they are peering with me or not.  Why do
people continue to tie these 2 issues together?

>
>I now take my large ISP hat off and return to the other side of the table.
>I find that many of these same problems affect me if I am a small or new
>ISP joining up to a public exchange like the NAPs or MAEs. Now I get 10
>peering requests per week and I run down the list of issues and before I
>know it, I'm figuratively back on the other side of the table wondering 
>how clueless the other party is.
>
>The public exchanges are useful for a variety of things and they are and
>will remain important, but the pressure for private peering points is
>considerable as I outlined. Take your high bandwidth traffic to/from your
>true peers off to private interconnects and avoid the hassle of the public
>bazaar for that part of the bandwidth. The traffic level justifies high
>bandwidth pipes for private peerings.
>
>My suggestion to newcomers and small ISPs is to help advance your cause by 
>latching onto the route servers and RA contractors as a way to help
>yourselves 
>and your backbone peers. You need a process which can demonstrate that you
>are 
>addressing the issues I outlined above. If that process were to be
accepted by
>all, then perhaps it would be easier to convince the backbones not to slow
>the 
>peering process, but fix it and maintain it, while continuing private 
>interconnects as warranted.
>
>Flame away, but try to stay on point. (Please don't respond and say that the
>true figure is 50 peerings per week, even though it may be more accurate.)
>
>--Kent
>Speaking as a PacBell NAP consultant.
>
>
>
>

Justin Newton
Network Architect
Erol's Internet Services
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -