Peering versus Transit

Tue Oct 1 13:57:59 UTC 1996

> From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen at quad.quadrunner.com>
> Unfortunately, people who think non-operationally tend to have their heads
> in the clouds.  People who think both operationally and developmentally
> are hard to find, but are the best at realizing better methods that are
> scalable.
>
> "Old hats" might have a problem accepting some change, but they are a bit
> wiser.  Most "old hats" at least know what an RFC is.  Or can at least
> pass up marketing hype and find real-world results as a basis for judging
> performance within a network (and I'm not just referring to hardware).
>
> The problem is that "new hats" tend to re-invent the wheel way too many
> times.
>
I believe that you are being unfair to rather a large number of folks --
speaking as an "old hat", indeed probably much older hat than most of
those on this list, who knows what an RFC is....  Indeed, I happen to
think of folks like those that operate Sprint (et alia) as the "new"
kids on the block.  And we get more "new" kids all the time, such as
yourself.

Not everyone agrees on how the Internet should be operated, or what the
model should be, or even that there should be a single model!  We
explicitly set things up so that many funding models could be tried.
That assumed that all participants would peer with each other at neutral
locations (the NAPs).

The restrictive peering policies of a few large carriers are making that
difficult.  Some folks, both old and new, are exploring the issues and
suggesting solutions.

Please do not disparage such comments and questions.  They were actually
quite accurate and helpful.

WSimpson at UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2