[5008] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Peering versus Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexis Rosen)
Fri Oct 4 03:59:23 1996
From: Alexis Rosen <alexis@panix.com>
To: alan@mindvision.com
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 03:56:56 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: dorian@cic.net, barney@databus.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199610021600.LAA21703@anka.mindvision.com> from "Alan Hannan" at Oct 2, 96 11:00:58 am
Alan Hannan writes:
> [Alexis writes:]
> > It's a really bad decision. It saves the cost of hiring a real engineer, but
> > who wants to see a repeat of MAE-East? IXPs need a real traffic cop, at the
> > very least, to wreak havoc on people who play nasty link-layer games. (Yes,
> > it's conceivable that everyone on the IXP could guard themselves, but this
> > is highly inefficient both in dollars and hours spent.)
>
> It would seem to me that you've two rather positive choices ->
> Elect the Routing Arbiter (Hi Bill :-) to police the XPs, or
> through capitalism force the XP operators to implement such a
> service.
>
> The former would be difficult as the're A/ overworked, and B/
> officially powerless at the XPs (unless the XPs annoint them, which
> is highly suspect). The latter would be difficult in light of a
> Robert Heinlein quote:
>
> " If you give the people the ability to vote themselves bread
> and circuses, they will. "
(Heh. I remember that quote.)
You've pretty much repeated my point...
> Were the market to change (it might) we could have this. Or, one
> could create another market. Several smallerish XPs (StLouiX)
> comes to mind, have high quality peering standards built into
> them. I believe the CIX has done a fairly good job at this in the
> past.
>
> But, it's my opinion that the only way to get MFS/PB/SL/AADS to
> listen is with the pocketbook.
Thus my decision.
I think I'm going to tackle this one myself soon. I've given it a *lot* of
thought.
/a
