[4793] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Best way to deal with bad advertisements?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Sun Sep 29 13:18:56 1996
To: rob@elite.exodus.net (Robert Bowman), peter@wonderland.org
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:14:01 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199609291653.JAA29842@elite.exodus.net> from "Robert Bowman" at Sep 29, 96 09:53:30 am
From: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Reply-To: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Hallo,
> > Yes but... maybe you didn't see what I said. Why should *I* (my
> > company) install a US wide national network, to no-ones advantage
> > except the leased line company, when we have already made the *huge*
> > effort of moving the data across the atlantic.
It would be to the european comany's advantage, IF
A/ they could not peer with the transit provider(s) for the
desired customer base
B/ they gained more benefit from reaching the customer base
than it cost them
It's important to remember the various rationale for filtering
peers:
i/ decrease the number of folks who can hurt the peering
neighbor through flapping or errors
ii/ don't want to carry traffic acros the US, requiring you
to be throughout the US.
iii/ the big person gains less than the litle by peering, so
the little person shuld pay (purchase transit)
Certainly there are other reasons, certainly they are up for
debate, but they are real reasons I've heard in different
contexts.
> > All these 3IX at DS3 policies indicate to me is the bigoted, pro-US
> > nature of the NSPs over there. How about paying there way, since
> > more and more of the content and customers are outside the US and
> > it is in the interests of the customers of the NSPs to have better
> > connecivity to Europe/Asia/elsewhere.
It is in their interest to have better connectivity, but perhaps not
to the tune of $8M/year. Besides, as is alluded to earlier, who
needs it more, the US or the europeans? I'd like to see some
middle ground, but I can see and understand the mentality of the
US-centric actions.
> > the attitude that "if they [non-US NSP/ISPs] have paid for the line
> > themselves up 'til now, lets see what else we can screw out of
> > them".
Supply and demand, unfortunately....
> Nowhere in any of the above mentioned ISPs have I seen a policy stating
> that these had to be US DS3 IXP connections. I'm interested to see how
> many of the 3 have connectivity into LINX and other IXPs in Europe. That
> should/could qualify I suppose. If it didn't, then they are making a huge
> mistake. By having the Europeans front the cost for transatlantic, and then
> not peering with them, seems not only selfish, but idiotic.
True.... US companys would prefer to send traffic to Europe over
someone else's lines if the quality was high enough.
Perhaps if the European company offered to transit European
traffic for them? :-)
> > Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the
> > "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ?
> Realistically, wouldn't you agree that that is the goal of the NSPs and ISPs
> that won't peer? It obviously is not a resource hog. There ARE alternative
> motives. But who can blame them in the wonderful world of the commercial
> Internet? It could be worse.. Uncle U.S. could step in and force them to
> peer with everyone.
Just to add a bit to that, the US Government could force providers
to peer with all providers meeting certain requirements (enter
telco history) but I think there would be difficulty requiring
them to peer with non-US companies.
$0.02
-alan
