[4877] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Zimmerman)
Mon Sep 30 19:50:35 1996
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 19:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Matt Zimmerman <mdz@netrail.net>
To: Bill Woodcock <woody@zocalo.net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199609302249.PAA20789@zocalo.net>
On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@netrail.net> writes:
> > because you're using THEIR resources to do so, without
> > explicit permission from them.
> That's a repetition of the same position that's been stated over and
> over, without justification. If A sends to B directly in the absence
> of an advertised route, A is "stealing" resources from B. If B sends
> to A indirectly through A's transit provider, then B is "stealing"
> resources from A. What makes the former case worse in your mind than
> the latter, when it results in higher reliability, lower cost, and a
> sounder architecture?
In the latter case, there are established agreements for exchange of
traffic. In the former case, there are not. B may not even KNOW that A
is doing this. The distinction seems rather clear.
Besides this, there are engineering reasons why this is a bad idea, many
of which have been explained to you already. Also note that dumping your
traffic to an NSP at an IXP may not BE a route of "higher reliability" or
"sounder architecture". Randomly injecting your traffic into some point
on B's network does not guarantee, or even imply, optimal traffic
patterns. I also fail to see how this is a lower-cost solution, as,
without a peering agreement with B, you must still purchase transit to
them from another source.
> Reiterating the same position over and over without any basis or logical
> foundation does nothing to convince anyone that your position is of
> any merit.
I've seen several messages with excellent engineering, economic and
philosopical arguments against this practice.
--
// Matt Zimmerman Chief of System Management NetRail, Inc.
// mdz@netrail.net sales@netrail.net
// (703) 524-4800 [voice] (703) 516-0500 [data] (703) 534-5033 [fax]
