[49426] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Sprint peering policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Mon Jul 1 14:01:50 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <floresp10@cox.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:00:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <001501c22122$6218eac0$39e00d44@tu.ok.cox.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if=
Either X OR
>Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't)=
do it. If
>party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect=
that they
>are, X might feel the need to lay some surcharges of some time=
on the
>connection, which is only fair, if they feel they aren't=
receiving value for
>value.
=09Suppose that X is presented with a take it or leave it deal.=
Suppose further
that X, on net, benefits from this deal. Why should they care how=
much or how
little Y, Z, or T benefit from the deal? What kind of business=
sense does
that make?
>Otherwise, esp. now that enough people have gotten their hands=
caught in the
>cookie jars, why would they GIVE away 'free' services for=
nothing in return?
=09We're not talking about "nothing in return". We're talking about=
an
arrangement between two parties that both benefit from. Why=
should one party
care how much the other benefits? (Except, of course, as possible=
leverage to
negotiate a better deal.)
>Peering with anyone is a pain, but a necessary one. If you don't=
have
>something anyone wants, your not going to get peered (for free)=
with anyone.
>You have ZERO value to anyone else, therefore, expect to pay for=
your
>connections. Does it really have to be more complicated than=
that?
=09I don't think so, but that's not what I'm objecting to. What I'm=
objecting
to is "I won't do it because it benefits someone else" even when=
it also
benefits you. Do you demand a payment from your neighbors before=
you paint
your house or do you paint your house if the benefit to you is=
more than the
cost to you? What do you care whether and how much your neighbors=
benefit?
>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a=
regulatory
>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some=
kind of
>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only=
way _I_
>would buy off on that, would be to have some kind of subsidy=
paid from tax
>dollars to the carriers in question to 'force' them to peer with=
people who
>have no other redeeming value. This way, I get paid, Y gets to=
brag to his
>peers that he is hooked up with X and my tax bill goes up...
>
>Talk about false progress. Isn't fudging the books how we got=
here in the
>1st place?
>
>No thanks.
=09Actually, I think you can make peering fair in a much more=
simple way.
Simply explain to people a sensible and rational way to evaluate=
their
peering decisions. "Does it benefit me as much as or more than=
anyone else"
is neither sensible not rational. "Does it benefit me more than=
it costs me?"
and "Is it the best deal I can negotiate for this amount of=
benefit?", on the
other hand, are sensible, rational, and fair.
=09DS
