|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: BBN/GTEI
> This ignores the fact that both companies have paying customers. If I am a > BBN access customer and I cannot get to any sites, then what good is BBN to > me? As an access provider, I built a access infrastructure and I get payed > by my customer for providing it to them (include in this cost is the price > to connect to content providers). If I am a Exodus customer and I pay for > hosting, Exodus is no good to me if it doesn't have any viewers. Exodus > built a hosting infrastructure, its customers pay for the right to use that > infrastructure(included in this cost is the price to connect to viewers). So > both companies need each other. Both companies get payed for providing a > service. Where is the problem? Why should BBN get a cut of what Exodus's > cutomers pay? BBN is trying to get payed to provide something it needs to > from Exodus. If BBN needs it, why would Exodus pay for it? Isn't BBN trying > to get payed twice? > If you are a BBN access customer, then you BUY TRANSIT FROM BBN. That's not ignored below, that puts you in the category of people that should make noise. Personally, I agree with your position. Owen > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dillon [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, August 21, 1998 9:13 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: BBN/GTEI > > > > On Fri, 21 Aug 1998, Brian Wallingford wrote: > > > > > If you don't peer with or buy > > > transit from GTEI, sit back, shut up, and watch and learn (seriously - > > > WATCH and LEARN). > > > > This is seriously good advice. A lot of people have compared this to the > > UUNet peering flap but the two incidents couldn't be more different. In > > UUNet's case you had John Sidgemore, an economist, attempting to throw his > > weight around and push towards a paid peering scenario with a cartel at > > the core, all of this based solely on an economics viewpoint. > > > > But with BBN, there is a network engineering problem at the core of the > > issue, that of assymmetric traffic patterns. And BBN realizes that this > > sort of assymmetry will become more and more common in the future and that > > the industry needs to find some sort of hybrid peering/settlement > > mechanism that will work for both parties in an asymmetric arrangement. > > They are looking at things like what kind of methodology can be used to > > measure the traffic, what constitutes free balanced peering, how to charge > > for regional transit on traffic that exceeds the limits of balanced > > peering, and similar difficult issues. > > > > I believe that the reason we are not hearing many details is that there > > are NDAs in place about the specifics of the Exodus, AboveNet and CRL > > peering contracts. But sooner or later those companies will come to some > > sort of agreement and BBN will explain the rationale behind their > > thinking. We may not totally agree with that rationale, but I think we can > > all see that establishing peering between two specialty providers has to > > be handled a bit differently than between two full-service providers. > > > > And if BBN's ideas can be refined and accepted by the industry, then we > > will be in a better position because there will be an established > > methodology and pricing structure for an ISP to transition from full > > transit to full peering. I know from my experience with Priori that a lot > > of peering negotiations happen like an old-boys club cartel and if you > > ain't a member of the club, you can't get in. We need to change this so > > that there is an open process by which anyone can transition to being a > > peer based on an open and accepted methodology and pricing structure. > > > > -- > > Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting > > Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: [email protected] > > Check the website for my Internet World articles - http://www.memra.com > > > > >
|