US-Asia Peering
David Diaz
techlist at smoton.net
Fri Jan 3 15:11:09 UTC 2003
Both Stephen and Jeff and correct.
And Im not sure it would be in the best interests of the colo company
to be a jack of all trades.
Where I do see a benefit are where an exch pt company wants to start
a new one in a new city. It's the classic chicken and the egg.
Where I have promoted allowing a beta group of peers to jump in for
little or no charge till say peer #6, another solution is to connect
that new exch pt to a successful one at another location. Allowing
the benefit of new peers at location B to see old peers at location
A. This would allow a critical mass of peers immediately, and would
allow customer 1 to see benefit.
Some restrictions might have to be in place.
1) Limiting the traffic levels for distance peering. 100meg or 1 Gig
would do it
2) Perhaps a time limit
Also, instead of competing with carriers at this new location B, you
would actually prove there is business there. Most companies are in
a wait and see mode before deploying, or a wait and get an order 1st
mode. By jump starting the peering with transport, you then have the
data the carrier engineers need to justify a build.
This IS one way to get more successful peering points started.
At 10:05 -0500 1/3/03, Jeff Barrows wrote:
>> - Transit providers who came to the exchange point for the purpose of
>> picking up transit sales.
>>
>> - If the exchange point operator is the one carrying the traffic, they
>> lose for competing with their customers in the previous bullet; they
>> will have taken the first steps on the path from being an exchange
>> point operator to being a network-plus-colo provider (where they'll
>> compete with the network-plus-colo providers just coming out of
>> bankruptcy with all their debt scraped off).
>
> i'm still amazed that nobody has brought up the fact that a couple
> of the larger colo/exchange operators that claimed they wouldn't
> compete with their IP customers are indeed selling IP transit--
> intentionally undercutting the prices of the providers that colo'd
> there to sell transit partly because the colo/exchange operator
> kept telling the world that they would never compete with their
> customers in the IP transit space.
>
> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
> customers don't complain too loudly.
>
> not that it's a bad long-term plan-- but I do agree with Stephen
> in that it'll be tough for them to survive against the debt-free
> big boys if they emerge as clear network-plus-colo competitors
> and lose the few remaining bits of their 'neutral' facade.
>
> - jsb
>
>
>
>--
>Jeff Barrows, President
>Firefly Networks
>http://FireflyNetworks.net
>+1 703 287 4221 Voice
>+1 703 288 4003 Facsimile
>
>An Advanced Internet Engineering
>& Professional Services Organization
--
David Diaz
dave at smoton.net [Email]
pagedave at smoton.net [Pager]
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
More information about the NANOG
mailing list