[47707] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (E.B. Dreger)
Fri May 10 14:15:07 2002
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:14:34 +0000 (GMT)
From: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
To: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
Cc: James Smith <jsmith@PRESIDIO.com>,
"'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020510182923.D7182@flix.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0205101754150.20710-100000@www.everquick.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
CL> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100
CL> From: Chrisy Luke
[ snipped ]
CL> While nobody has tried to take a "Tier-1" to court for what
CL> could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers
CL> will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of
CL> connectivity to *your* network is so small from their
CL> perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain,
CL> they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience,
CL> and having seen this done in black and white). The words used
CL> are along the lines of "that is what happens when you connect
CL> to a non-tier-1, like us".
Now, as much as I'd not expect C&W to peer with us, look at
PSINet. Were they small? What about EXDS? Those peering paths
were to provide better-<insert various metrics> to the eyeballs.
I'd argue that both are/were significant. And as much as it's a
good thing to not require everyone to peer with everyone (n^2
would be out of control), it would also be bad if the entire
world depended on a single ASN.
I agree that a line must be drawn, but disagree with where
certain carriers draw the line. But I suppose that we're
insignificant to them, and they probably don't even care about
selling _transit_ to someone so small. [Not that this is
inherently bad... just be up front about it like L3, and tell
people what the minimum is.]
I guess the C&W slogan is also rubbing me the wrong way.
"Delivering on the Internet promise" seems to imply that traffic
gets there reliably. ;-) [Note that I'm impressed with the good
community support... not just bashing C&W.]
Note that this is not peculiar to the Internet. Look at the EDI
world, and what happened to ICC with Sterling and GE. _That_,
IMHO, is a much more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior.
--
Eddy
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com>
To: blacklist@brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.
