North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?

  • From: Gary Zimmerman
  • Date: Fri May 02 10:18:22 1997

Just a note about the cost of doing business in what I call this new
internet.  We are building both, the long hauls between cities and also
purchasing the bandwidth from the 3 major player, MCI, SPRINT, and UUNET. 
We have 19 cities total, with DS3s from each of the 3 above in 7 of the 19
cities. All cities are tied together via long hauls.  This was not the
cheap way to do this, but it is the most effective.  Major reason, when you
peer, you can not manage the network connection.  We get to manage our
connections in the seven location with the major three.  We also can get
some nice routing done because we are buying access to their networks.  I
really think the best way to get this done is to buy transiting bandwidth
from whom ever you want.  I think the peering should be done in a managed
way.  The maes and naps are not really managed connections, they are best
as best can to get through them.  So if you every want and kind of QOS for
your network, buy the bandwidth not a unmanaged/miss managed connection. 
To make the internet as stable as the voice systems then these
interconnection (bandwidth) agreements must be put in place and managed
with two adult parties, not several hundred meg a bit connections going
into a switch trying to come out a DS3 straw.  So buy the bandwidth and
manage it. 


Gary Zimmerman
V.P. of Network Engineering
Savvis Communications Corp.
email: [email protected]
http://www.savvis.com
Office: 314.719.2423
Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000
               St. Louis, MO 63105


----------
> From: Matthew E. Pearson <[email protected]>
> To: Stephen Balbach <[email protected]>; Gordon Cook <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them
withcharging under non-disclosure?
> Date: Saturday, May 03, 1997 5:28 AM
> 
> At 06:43 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote:
> 
> >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. 
> 
> Explain to me how it is cheaper to pay UUNET for a full DS3 from
> Boston-Washington, Wasington to Chicago, Washington to San Jose, Chicago
to
> San Jose, Washington to NYC at $60,000 each not including telco or
transit.
> Than it is to pay a telco alone for just the lines? I'd love to see how
the
> numbers work out on that!
> 
> If your plan is to sell connectivity nationwide or semi-nationwide it is
> absurdly more expensive to use UUNET than to do it yourself.
> 
> Yes, if you are a local ISP and never intend to sell anything outside of
> your area, it -MIGHT- possibly be cheaper. However, at $60,000 per DS3
> circuit not including telco/transit as opposed to even a $25,000
WorldComm
> circuit -END TO END- I still don't see how the math works, unless you are
a
> UUNET reseller which wouldn't explain why you are building a network
yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------
> Matthew E. Pearson
> Vice President of Development
> Games-Online Inc.
> http://www.games-online.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -