[5680] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vadim Antonov)
Thu Oct 24 23:51:50 1996
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 20:36:55 -0700
From: Vadim Antonov <avg@quake.net>
To: bradley@dunn.org, karl@Mcs.Net
Cc: agislist@interstice.com, cook@netaxs.com, nanog@merit.edu
Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net> wrote:
>Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement
>peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have
>traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to
>carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to
subsidies from large peers to small.
That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument:
Big Provider
Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP]
|
IXP
|
Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP]
Small Provider
When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through
1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile.
Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too
more important things like hosting of information suppliers.
Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts
1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to
the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's
customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%.
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size.
Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply
causes large folks to flee.
--vadim
