North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 And now, to "drop the bomb"... The other issue is that this isn't just C&W vs FNSI. The word on the street is that C&W is engaged in a "Kamikazee Peering" strategy in order to boost transit revenues. Rumor has it that other recipients of the C&W nasty-gram include Level 3, Telia, NetRail, XO, and Verio. There are certain to be others as well. I can't swear on a stack of bibles that these folks have gotten the letter, but that's the story, at least. If true, then we are talking about a reasonable chunk of the commodity Internet. It's unusual to "name names" in the peering game, but this is an intolerable and almost unpresidented situation, as some or all of the networks listed above are transit-free. And, contrary to Randy's comments, this is certainly enough of the Internet to cause disruption. We must ask: 1) Is this the end of peering as we know it? Is it settlement time all around? 2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves? 3) Will we stand up to the bully on the playground? 4) Is this a crisis effecting global reachability? #1 is doubtful - the only current condition that could really cause this is the collapse of multiple transit-free carriers due to current market conditions. It would take more than a PSINet implosion to cause this, I'm guessing. #2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here. It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood. Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath. #3 - Well, I doubt it. At least one ISP has already crumbled and agreed to a settlement with C&W. #4 - Yep. C&W's actions and the resulting disruptions in service that we'll see because of them, over the next 30 days, mark a new chapter in peering disputes. Should be interesting to see how it all pans out. Now, back to the regularly scheduled off-topic threads concerning telcom legislation and blackholing China... - - Daniel L. Golding (Speaking only for me) > -----Original Message----- > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf > Of Richard A. Steenbergen > Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM > To: John Payne > Cc: David Schwartz; email@example.com > Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!? > > > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > Not so fast. While each of his customers is more > > > inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. > > > The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced > > > multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be > > > nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has > > > someone else to blame. > > > > > > > That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be > > transit free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the > > smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than > > peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other > > than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering > > points. > > The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is > the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but > I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question > would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all > likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and > to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know > if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a > low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or > relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the > other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will > be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is > whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got > for free. > > Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless > peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic > would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant > reduction in > congestion then there must have been a significant amount of > traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the > biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War > (http://www.pimpwar.com). :P > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <firstname.lastname@example.org> > http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 > 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> iQA/AwUBOvTu2X/79ekXZHvJEQLv5ACbBJdomK1cyrjHSTjcebVjxpMqEIsAn0M0 h9TaLbNrdaV6wIFgdi1PCp0l =JYUx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----