North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: Sprint peering policy

  • From: Phil Rosenthal
  • Date: Mon Jul 01 15:29:35 2002


---
> 
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a 
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them

> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you 
> through their current peers.

Reduced latency? Shorter hop counts? ("Hello, this is customer xxx, why
does it take 27 hops for me to get to xyz.com?") Do these not benefit
them in any way?
---

Right, but Wcom peers with verio, bbn, sprint, att in just about every
major city, so they are going to have low latency anyway, "most of the
time".

---
> The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves 
> that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at
> least)

I don't think "peering could not overcome corrupt financial officers and
$3B in debt" equates to "peering has no relation to financial
difficulties" exactly.

Here's a fun exercise:  Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
---

Apples and oranges.  Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP".  Wcom would likely
not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.  They gain
absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.  Wcom's
costs only increase since they need "more ports".


--Phil