[69821] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gary Hale)
Tue Apr 20 17:05:58 2004
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:52:20 -0400
From: "Gary Hale" <ghale@globalinternetworking.com>
To: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
"Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>,
"Gordon Cook" <cook@cookreport.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I disagree ... but sure do appreciate your tone ... :)
Regards,
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding@burtongroup.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:32 PM
To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Cynical? Gee, I hope so. Anyone who reads that sort of fluff needs to be
cynical. Lack of appropriate cynicism led, in part, to the "recent
unpleasantness" in the telecommunications industry.
Words like "enabling", "leveraging", "mindshare", "b2b", "e-*", "i-*",
et
al, are considered harmful to fruitful operational discussion :)
--=20
Daniel Golding
Network and Telecommunications Strategies
Burton Group
On 4/20/04 2:17 PM, "Gary Hale" <ghale@globalinternetworking.com> wrote:
> Daniel,
>=20
> That is way too cynical ... and does not address the question of
whether
> building your own transport ever runs counter to the Internet as a
> consortium.=20
>=20
> There are business justifications that underpin peering relationships
> ... and they are based on understanding (or ... "philosophy") ....
>=20
> Gary
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding@burtongroup.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:36 AM
> To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
>=20
> On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, "Gary Hale" <ghale@globalinternetworking.com>
wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of
> small
>> vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination.
> Peering
>> is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content
> globally
>> ... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium.
>>=20
>> Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone
build
>> an autonomous, facilities-based, global "Internet" network that
> competes
>> for narrowband/broadband "pullers" of data and hosting/data
> centers/etc.
>> for content providers ("pulled-fromers" or "pushers" of data)?
>>=20
>> Gary
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michel Py [mailto:michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us]
>> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM
>> To: Gordon Cook; nanog@merit.edu
>> Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be
>>> had for $20 per megabit per second?
>>=20
>> The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit.
>>=20
>> Michel.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
> Gary,
>=20
> "Peering is an enabler"
> "gives all an opportunity to share content globally"
> "fundamental to the Internet consortium"
>=20
> This is like the "greatest hits" compendium collected from various
> failed
> 1990's service provider business plans :)
>=20
> People should be careful. Peering is a business/networking arrangement
> that
> can save them money (or not). Those who try to imbue it with
> philosophical
> significance must be viewed with skepticism.
>=20
>=20
> Daniel Golding
> Network and Telecommunications Strategies
> Burton Group
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
