[28329] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering Table Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Diaz)
Tue Apr 25 23:05:17 2000
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p04310106b52c07bc18e9@[10.0.1.2]>
In-Reply-To: <034c01bfaec7$322d0780$cfa728c3@knowledge.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 23:02:15 -0400
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowledge.com>,
"Jeff Barrows" <jsb@UU.NET>, "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>
From: David Diaz <davediaz@netrail.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I read through this entire thread and it has shown to hit a raw nerve
causing some comments to get away from the professionals that wrote
them.
I dont consider any network I peer with "evil" although they may have
policies and practices I wholly disagree with.
1st the thread was correct to state that each network should have a
written policy for implementing/initiating peering with another
network. I do not believe the gov coming in and making a blanket
policy is in the best interest of the net, however that is a danger
if some make initiating peering impossible to achieve. The way
different backbones implement peering IS a differentiator.
2nd I think this traffic balance issue is ridiculous and always have.
If you have eyeballs they are paying for connectivity to the net,
specifically content. In the rest of telecom those that initiate
the request get billed so here eyeballs should be billed... and they
are by their ISPs. If the network infrastructure is so expensive to
maintain that the eyeball ISP losses money then they changed the
incorrect rate. 1 word here caching. If the eyeball backbone wants
to save network capacity and costs dropping some caches and give Doug
H a call and add Cidera feed. If your network design is such that
you cannot provide this caching service you better plan for it on
your next build. The obligation of the big content
backbones/websites should be to have multiple sites or inverse
caching at the exchange cities to eliminate an undo burden on the
eyeball backbones.
Fair is fair.
Both types of backbones, the eyeballs and the content backbones need
to work together. In ever peering doc Ive seen there is a section on
working together to enhance each others networks etc etc. That is
rarely done in good spirit that it was intended. That's a shame and
the responsibility falls for the most part squarely on us
professionals on this list.
With DSL coming along wont it be interesting to see how this will put
pressure on the peering issue.
David
At 4:01 PM +0100 4/25/00, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > Sean -
>>
>> We sign and comply with mutual non-disclosure agreements
>> that inhibit my ability to share that information with you.
>>
>> This is not a technical issue.
>
>If you are unable to provide this information, then don't ask stupid,
>goading questions in the first place. You don't need to wave the "third
>parties are idiots" stick around too much, unless you have a better way of
>proving your marketing-driven claims.
>
>UUNET (or whatever the name is this week in the land of Dogbert) may claim
>to be the world largest ISP, but they don't make many friends along the way.
>
>Those who want the money ... line up here. Those who want respect of their
>peers ... over there. Sorry, we don't have a queue for both.
>
>Peter
--
Thank you,
David Diaz
Chief Technical Officer
Netrail, Inc
email: davediaz@netrail.net, davediaz@fla.net, cougar@mail.rockstar.org
pager: davediaz@bellsouthips.com
NOC: 404-522-1234
Fax: 404 522-2191
-----------------------------------
Build 1: 46 cities nationwide -- COMPLETE
Build 2: 80 OC48s Nationwide [no typo]
++ FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION! ++
------------------------------------
