North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Peering Table Question
I read through this entire thread and it has shown to hit a raw nerve causing some comments to get away from the professionals that wrote them.
I dont consider any network I peer with "evil" although they may have policies and practices I wholly disagree with.
1st the thread was correct to state that each network should have a written policy for implementing/initiating peering with another network. I do not believe the gov coming in and making a blanket policy is in the best interest of the net, however that is a danger if some make initiating peering impossible to achieve. The way different backbones implement peering IS a differentiator.
2nd I think this traffic balance issue is ridiculous and always have. If you have eyeballs they are paying for connectivity to the net, specifically content. In the rest of telecom those that initiate the request get billed so here eyeballs should be billed... and they are by their ISPs. If the network infrastructure is so expensive to maintain that the eyeball ISP losses money then they changed the incorrect rate. 1 word here caching. If the eyeball backbone wants to save network capacity and costs dropping some caches and give Doug H a call and add Cidera feed. If your network design is such that you cannot provide this caching service you better plan for it on your next build. The obligation of the big content backbones/websites should be to have multiple sites or inverse caching at the exchange cities to eliminate an undo burden on the eyeball backbones.
Fair is fair.
Both types of backbones, the eyeballs and the content backbones need to work together. In ever peering doc Ive seen there is a section on working together to enhance each others networks etc etc. That is rarely done in good spirit that it was intended. That's a shame and the responsibility falls for the most part squarely on us professionals on this list.
With DSL coming along wont it be interesting to see how this will put pressure on the peering issue.
At 4:01 PM +0100 4/25/00, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> Sean -We sign and comply with mutual non-disclosure agreements that inhibit my ability to share that information with you. This is not a technical issue.If you are unable to provide this information, then don't ask stupid, goading questions in the first place. You don't need to wave the "third parties are idiots" stick around too much, unless you have a better way of proving your marketing-driven claims. UUNET (or whatever the name is this week in the land of Dogbert) may claim to be the world largest ISP, but they don't make many friends along the way. Those who want the money ... line up here. Those who want respect of their peers ... over there. Sorry, we don't have a queue for both. Peter
-- Thank you, David Diaz Chief Technical Officer Netrail, Inc email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] pager: [email protected] NOC: 404-522-1234 Fax: 404 522-2191 ----------------------------------- Build 1: 46 cities nationwide -- COMPLETE Build 2: 80 OC48s Nationwide [no typo] ++ FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! ++ ------------------------------------