[143852] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Level 3 Peering Guidelines
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Aug 19 17:42:24 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110819205121.GA30769@ussenterprise.ufp.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:40:43 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:29:05PM -0400, Adam =
Rothschild wrote:
>> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=3D7021703819
>=20
> I like to see Level 3 arguing this with the regulators. AboveNet
> persued this line of thinking with a number of ISP's in the late
> 1990's with some success, and I believe others did as well. AboveNet
> implmented it by honoring MEDs from peers, and thus doing a cold
> potato routing and carrying a higher bit-mile cost.
Yes, Above.Net broke the original peering-ratio fight that way. Thank =
you for that. Too bad it didn't last.
> Ratio is the most broken part about modern peering agreements.
> Ratio really has no bearing on the costs to either ISP, it is an
> artifact of their position in the world. That is to say the type
> of ISP (end user, content) location (urban, rural) or technologies
> (dsl, cable, leased line) along with user behavior determine the
> ratio. Early ISP's that had similar customer mixes, locations, and
> technologies could use ratio as an easy proxy, but those days are
> long gone.
There are many broken parts of 'modern' peering agreements.
"You must spend as much on your backbone as I spend on mine." "You must =
be on at least 3 continents (no matter where the traffic goes to or =
from)." "'Peer' means 'equal'." "You have to be wearing a blue hat =
when you request peering." Whatever.
I've said it before, more times than I can count. Peering is a business =
tool, a means to an end. The goal, the 'end', of for-profit companies =
is to make a profit. Sounds obvious, but surprising how many people =
forget this. If peering with another network will increase your profit =
and you turn down the peering request, you should be fired. Your ego =
should not be substituted for business decisions.
Some people rationalize these decisions (read: "con themselves into =
believing") by saying if they do not peer with a network, they will gain =
revenue from that network. It even works sometimes. Most of the time =
it does not work, and in more & more cases ensures no revenue will =
-ever- flow between the companies.
Just so no one jumps all over me, I am not even hinting that peering =
requests must always be accepted. There are rational, business reasons =
to turn down peering. But a one-size-fits-all policy is idiotic, as are =
most of the reasons peering requests are denied these days.
More importantly, the real issue is power (leverage, whatever you want =
to call it). In the 90s, all users had to do to switch ISPs is change a =
few digits in their modem dialer. Content owners had to do quite a bit =
more to move a web site between hosting providers.
These days, it is very difficult for end users to change broadband ISPs, =
frequently requiring equipment changes (e.g. DSL -> Cable), moving phone =
& TV, etc. Worse, for many people in the US, they have only one =
provider who can give them more than 1.5 Mbps.[*] Content owners can =
move hosting companies easily.
Not hard to figure out who had more power in the 90s, and who has it =
now.
> The primary challenge to change is the technical community coming
> up with some metric that is easy to measure and senior management
> can understand. You can go to a VP and say "the ratio to them is
> 1.5:1" and they get it (or so they think). Trying to make the same
> argument that on some vague level you are deriving "equal benefit"
> is much larger. I like Level 3's effort in using the bit-mile cost
> but I don't know any way to measure that metric easily on a large
> network.
Having a metric sr. mgmt can understand will not change which company =
has power. Companies that have power -will- exercise it to make money.
L3 is on the wrong side of the power equation today, so they are trying =
to move the discussion to something that has real business logic. Their =
only hope of the leverage some other companies have is to either get the =
gov't to step in (EWW!), or pray the threat of gov't regulation will be =
enough. Dangerous game, if you ask me.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
[*] Anyone know what %-age of North American users have multiple choices =
for real broadband (e.g. > 1.5 Mbps, or even > 4 Mbps as the FCC now =
defines it)? I searched, but can't find it. I can find how many people =
have > 4 Mbps available, but not more than one choice.
