[86307] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Tue Nov 1 14:00:16 2005
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 18:59:21 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Brandon Ross <bross@internap.com>
Cc: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>,
"Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0511011323070.12330@localhost.localdomain>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> That it's a pure power play.
market position is important
> Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities.
no, peering is entirely associated with costs or responsibilities.. what other
reason is there to peer ?
> It has to do with what company has the intestinal fortitude to draw a line in
> the sand and stick with it no matter how many customers cancel their service.
have to weigh up the gains and losses to see if that is a good or bad thing tho.
> Those with a critical mass of traffic and the right amount of guts win.
markets are always stacked in favour of the larger players in that way.. saying
'hey i'm a little guy, give me chance' generally goes unheard
> Everyone else loses the peering game.
not peering isnt necessarily losing, there are networks who would peer with me
if i turned up in asia or the west coast, but my cost to get there is greater
than sticking to transit.
to get a new peer, both sides need to feel they are gaining value
Steve
