[86313] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Ross)
Tue Nov 1 14:59:56 2005
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:59:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Brandon Ross <bross@internap.com>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>,
"Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0511011852450.25860-100000@server2.tcw.telecomplete.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 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
If by market position you are referring to who needs/wants/can do without
the traffic more, yes.
>> 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 ?
I was probably being a bit too dramatic with that statement. What I'm
trying to get across is that it doesn't matter who is "supposed to" pay
for "their customers'" traffic. It doesn't matter that I have a million
dialup users, if I can use my market position to get someone else to peer
with me "for free" that's all that matters. The fact that those 1 million
customers pay me is irrelevant.
>> 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.
Of course.
>> 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
Quite true.
>> 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.
You don't have to tell me that, I work for Internap, we've made a business
out of not peering, and doing quite well at it.
I said "loses the peering game". I didn't say they lost the game in
entirety. Similarly, just because a company "wins" the peering game
(fully peered with all other default free networks) doesn't mean it wins
the business game. Just take a look at a former employer of mine, 4006
was default free, but that doesn't mean that we made any money.
> to get a new peer, both sides need to feel they are gaining value
Or one side needs to be more scared of the other side cutting them off.
--
Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss
Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442
Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
