|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Sprint peering policy
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing", "dropping OC48 to IXs". Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway.... Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones.. Steve On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Deepak Jain wrote: > > > WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to > deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers > of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs > fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP. > > Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a > significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to > waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth > nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is > nothing. > > Deepak Jain > AiNET > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Miquel van Smoorenburg > Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy > > > > In article > <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/ > [email protected]>, > Phil Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote: > >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". > > Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if > > - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) > - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location > - they only announce regional routes to Joe > - they use hot potato routing everywhere > > in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably > all that Joe is after anyway > > Mike. > > >
|