[28192] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lauren F. Nowlin)
Wed Apr 19 18:30:52 2000
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000419153132.00ac3a40@pop.pgexpress.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:37:07 -0700
To: brett watson <bwatson@mibh.net>, nanog@merit.edu
From: "Lauren F. Nowlin" <ren@onyx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200004192017.NAA07091@ug.mibh.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I'm with Brett on this one... Is there any gain in advertising you don't
have a back door if congestion / network failure occurs with a
peer? Thinking back about all the work-arounds to get to specific peers
that couldn't add capacity where they wanted because of long drawn out
merger/acquisition activity makes me think a backdoor is wise and that
customers would expect such professional planning. Sitting on customer
calls I've heard that they don't want to go with network providers that
might be transit free but are reputed congestion nightmares.
Call it insurance against evolution...
-Ren
At 01:17 PM 4/19/00 -0700, brett watson wrote:
> >
> > > > are mis-representing themselves as [cost-free-] peering
> > > > with other networks when they are actually customers, or
> > > > in some type of 'settlement' arrangement.
> > >
> > > i contend that one can count the true tier one networks on the fingers
> > > of two hands.
> > >
> >
> > Howabout offering us your pearls and letting us in on who these mysterious
> > select group of 'real' tier one networks are?
>
>the question is: does it make any difference today, other than from a
>marketing perspective?
>
>-b
