[183154] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sat Aug 15 16:47:44 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 22:45:34 +0200
In-Reply-To: <B82AA595-C765-4C81-9F0B-38E99EC1A451@delong.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 15/Aug/15 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> IMHO, there=E2=80=99s only one yes answer here=E2=80=A6 If enough of th=
e eyeball/content
> providers are able to cooperate and peer with each other directly, you =
might
> see a significant impact (reduction in need) on transit providers as th=
eir entire
> business would become largely irrelevant.
This will work in a single market.
I've thought about this before too - when you start to cross nations or
continents, transit providers became a necessity; the eyeball networks
are typically not geared up to handle international or trans-continental
communications on their own.
The solution would be content providers deploying in each country to
remove the need for transit, but they still have to feed those clusters
somehow.
Ultimately, the big content players build and run their own networks,
completely bypassing the transit providers and peering with the eyeball
(and all) networks wherever they pitch tent. As it were, not all of them
have this muscle.
Mark.
