North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?
Just a note about the cost of doing business in what I call this new internet. We are building both, the long hauls between cities and also purchasing the bandwidth from the 3 major player, MCI, SPRINT, and UUNET. We have 19 cities total, with DS3s from each of the 3 above in 7 of the 19 cities. All cities are tied together via long hauls. This was not the cheap way to do this, but it is the most effective. Major reason, when you peer, you can not manage the network connection. We get to manage our connections in the seven location with the major three. We also can get some nice routing done because we are buying access to their networks. I really think the best way to get this done is to buy transiting bandwidth from whom ever you want. I think the peering should be done in a managed way. The maes and naps are not really managed connections, they are best as best can to get through them. So if you every want and kind of QOS for your network, buy the bandwidth not a unmanaged/miss managed connection. To make the internet as stable as the voice systems then these interconnection (bandwidth) agreements must be put in place and managed with two adult parties, not several hundred meg a bit connections going into a switch trying to come out a DS3 straw. So buy the bandwidth and manage it. Gary Zimmerman V.P. of Network Engineering Savvis Communications Corp. email: email@example.com http://www.savvis.com Office: 314.719.2423 Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000 St. Louis, MO 63105 ---------- > From: Matthew E. Pearson <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: Stephen Balbach <email@example.com>; Gordon Cook <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Cc: email@example.com > Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure? > Date: Saturday, May 03, 1997 5:28 AM > > At 06:43 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote: > > >Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct > >from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone > >and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats, > >it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model. > > Explain to me how it is cheaper to pay UUNET for a full DS3 from > Boston-Washington, Wasington to Chicago, Washington to San Jose, Chicago to > San Jose, Washington to NYC at $60,000 each not including telco or transit. > Than it is to pay a telco alone for just the lines? I'd love to see how the > numbers work out on that! > > If your plan is to sell connectivity nationwide or semi-nationwide it is > absurdly more expensive to use UUNET than to do it yourself. > > Yes, if you are a local ISP and never intend to sell anything outside of > your area, it -MIGHT- possibly be cheaper. However, at $60,000 per DS3 > circuit not including telco/transit as opposed to even a $25,000 WorldComm > circuit -END TO END- I still don't see how the math works, unless you are a > UUNET reseller which wouldn't explain why you are building a network yourself. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Matthew E. Pearson > Vice President of Development > Games-Online Inc. > http://www.games-online.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -