|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Equality and asymetry in network designs
--------- And the biggest question of all. The USA is still the largest net exporter of data bits in the world. How much should US providers be paying non-USA providers to accept the bits? Right now, other than some NSF-funded connectivity such as Sprint ICM, most non-USA commercial networks must pay the full cost of the inter-continental circuits. Should the Internet adopt a charging model like international voice settlements. --------- John, I have been discussing the model mentioned about with some forgein PTTs that are in the internet buiz. I think it is fair especially since I believe for the moment that capital would be flowing in my direction for the moment. I thought it was fair and there were several ways to try and work the deal. Perhaps having a large carrier be a transit AS for me in say Japan wouldnt be such a bad way to expand. This was all just rough talk but I was interested. Obviously expanding backbones to go international quickly has it's pluses. I think partnerships are the way to go unless you are monopolistic and that is only beneficial short term. Dave At 3:14 AM -0000 8/25/98, Sean Donelan wrote: >[email protected] (John Curran) writes: >>p.s. The fact that the sender of traffic should be paying some portion >> of the resulting costs is not a surprise to anyone; many of the >> content companies that I've spoken to believe they already are >> paying more as traffic increases, and were quite surprised to >> find that it doesn't actually make it to the networks which >> bear the brunt of the traffic carriage. > >As someone who pays to carry traffic to both coasts, and pays to carry >traffic from both coasts to the center of the country and other places >where I notice very few large providers seem to exchange traffic I am >perpetually amused by this recurring discussion. > >If I read Mr. Curran's statement at face value I would assume networks >such as DRANET which are net importers of data, and pick up the data on >both coasts networks would expect to start receiving payments from large >providers with large web hosting centers in cities such as Cambridge. > >I look at maps such as http://www.bbnplanet.com/products/maps/us_host.htm >and see a network which is strong in some areas, and very weak in other >areas. St. Louis seems to be a gaping hole in many large providers. Sure, >the sales people always say "don't worry, any day we'll have capacity there >soon" but if you want something today we have to pay our way to an outer edge >of the country. Even if the network shows a "dot" in the middle of the >country, when you investigate further, I've usually found limited facilities. > >I'm sorry if I sound cynical. But I've been down this road of ever >changing requirements too many times. "Best-Exit" used to be the norm, >I even have a mail message from a Sprint engineer prohibiting "Hot potato" >routing if I wanted to peer with Sprint. Then the requirements changed, >I modified our network to comply, and the other provider of interest comes >up with a different requirement to justify it isn't a "peer" because something >is "unequal." The fact is, no two networks are equal in every way. > >How do you compare networks with large consumer access, web hosting, or >large numbers of dedicated access customers? How do you compare a network >with a large backbone in the continental USA with a network with a smaller >backbone in the USA plus Canada? Or how to you compare a network with >lots of transatlantic connectivity, but little cross-USA backbone or >trans-pacific connectivity. > >And the biggest question of all. The USA is still the largest net exporter >of data bits in the world. How much should US providers be paying non-USA >providers to accept the bits? Right now, other than some NSF-funded >connectivity such as Sprint ICM, most non-USA commercial networks must >pay the full cost of the inter-continental circuits. Should the Internet >adopt a charging model like international voice settlements. Will we see >the rise of 'call-back' services on the Internet based on asymmetric charges >for inbound and outbound data flows? The simple way to avoid people >'working' the system is to keep charges as close as possible to the actual >costs, so there is no incentive. But shareholders prefer companies that >operate well above the marginal cost, so you see companies trying to >create a pricing model which allows them to charge above cost. > >I like profit too, but other than certain regulated monopolies and software >companies, in a competitive market with low barriers to entry profit >margins are going to be narrow. One way to increase the 'spread' is to >to raise your competitors costs and make it difficult for new providers >to enter the market. Internal network design requirements of the other >providers network seem to be the most popular, e.g. you must put pipes >of certain sizes into certain locations even if it doesn't make design >sense. > >I've noticed that most of the newest competitors trying to enter the >market in the last year have resorted to buying a provider with an >existing peering agreement because it was virtually impossible for the >new competitor to get peering with some large providers, Level 3->Geonet, >Qwest->Eunet, and then pumping up the size of the pipes through those >existing interconnect. > >I've long said I'll agree to any settlement scheme, so long as it is >reciprocal. The problem I've seen with most of the schemes going back >to the ANS CO+RE charges has been the one-way nature of the settlements. >-- >Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO > Affiliation given for identification not representation Thank you, David Diaz Chief Technical Officer Netrail, Inc email: [email protected] pager: 888-576-1018 office: 888-NETRAIL Colo facilities: Atlanta-NAP, Miami, Arlington, Chicago, San Francisco 888-NETRAIL for further information
|