[64639] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Wouter van Hulten)
Wed Oct 29 16:38:12 2003
From: "Wouter van Hulten" <wouter@vanhulten.com>
To: "'William B. Norton'" <wbn@equinix.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:28:55 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031029102423.015a9dc8@nemo.corp.equinix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Hi Bill,
I'd be happy to review your paper.
Hope you're doing fine in the US, in these times of turmoil.
Best regards,
Wouter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On
> Behalf Of William B. Norton
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 7:35 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: The Evolution of the U.S. Peering Ecosystem
>
>
> Hi all -
>
> I've been working on documenting some of the significant
> disruption from and aftermath of the Telecom collapse of
> 1999/2000, focusing specifically on the operations community
> and the Peering Ecosystem in particular. I spent a lot of
> time speaking with Peering Coordinators to document the first
> order effects and some of the second order effects of the
> bankruptcies. I found some pretty interesting and fundamental
> changes in how the Internet is interconnected. Several new
> players have had a huge impact on what I call the "Internet
> Regional Peering Ecosystem." I presented a draft of this
> research at the GPF VII in Ashburn, Virginia last month and
> would love to have a few more reviewers give it a read and
> provide feedback.
>
> I pasted the abstract below. Thanks!
>
> Bill
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Abstract
>
> A new Internet Peering Ecosystem is rising from the Ashes of
> the 1999/2000 U.S. Telecommunications Sector crash. Global
> Internet Transit Providers have gone bust and a critical
> broadband infrastructure provider has failed, leaving in
> their wake a large set of Internet players to fend for
> themselves to provide their customers with Internet services.
> A broad set of Service Providers that were once focused only
> on growing their market share (at any cost) now are bending
> down to shave pennies off of their cost structure. Those who
> can not prove the viability of their business model while
> satisfying their customer demands are out of business.
>
> In this paper we share research carried out over the last
> four years with hundreds of Peering Coordinators to document
> the recent chaotic evolution of the Peering Ecosystem. We do
> this by first defining the notion of an Internet Peering
> Ecosystem, an Internet Region and Interconnection Region.
> We find in each Internet Peering Ecosystem three distinct
> categories set of participants, each with their own sets of
> characteristics and corresponding motivations and
> interconnection dynamics. We describe four classes of Peering
> Inclinations as articulated in Peering Policies.
>
> The bulk of the paper however focuses on the Evolution of the
> U.S. Peering Ecosystem. Several key players, some abandoned
> by their service providers, have entered into the Peering
> Ecosystem and caused a significant disruption to the
> Ecosystem. Peer-to-Peer application traffic has grown to
> represent a significant portion of their expense. We describe
> five major events and three emerging dynamics in the Peering
> Ecosystem that have had and continue to have a
> disintermediation effect on the Tier 1 ISPs.
>
> In the appendix we share a simple mathematical Internet
> Peering Model that can be used to demonstrate this Peering
> Ecosystem evolution. While not complete or by any means
> precise, it does allow us to demonstrate the affect of these
> disruptions in the Peering Ecosystem.
>
>
> /*
> William B. Norton <wbn@equinix.com> 650.315.8635
> Co-Founder and Chief Technical Liaison
> Equinix, Inc.
> */
>
>
>
