Peering versus Transit

Wed Oct 2 13:12:57 UTC 1996

Peering is becoming a real touchy issue.  Most of the larger providers
don't really want to peer with anyone else because they can't really handle
the extra traffic, or they are afraid of peering with a company that
doesn't have the technical staff that is truly knowledgable about backbone
routing.  
With the major peering points getting more accessable to smaller providers,
this becomes even more evident.  And to be truthful, it can be understood.
Their have been quite a ISP's get temporarily shutdown at one of the MAE's
because of "errors" in routing procedures.

No names mentioned, but for example about changing peering requirements.
One of the larger providers said they required three meet points + 2-3
private interconnects at DS-3 or higher...  when we said that we could do
that by the end of November, they said, "Really?.. that is going to cost
both companies a large sum in hardware and DS-3 local loop fees."  They
changed their requirements to be just three meet points. 

If you look at the monthly cost of buying a DS-3 from MCI, Sprint, UUNet,
AGIS, or PSI, it is much cheaper to get a connection to a MAE, and trying
to get peering.  

Eric

At 10:07 PM 9/30/96 -2900, you wrote:
>
>  Sean,
>
>  It almost makes one think the evil telcos are plotting a new
>  service/product that would be damaged by legacy contracts, eh?
>
>  -alan
>   internet engineer for the enquirer?
>
>> 
>> >These days peering agreements are business deals.
>> 
>> They have always been business deals. I'm just amazed as some of the
>> lengths some providers go to justify what should be a plain-old
>> business decision.  If you don't intend to peer with another provider,
>> just say so.  The only providers I tend to get really peeved at are
>> the ones that keep changing their stories.
>> 
>> AGIS told me in January '96 that their peering agreement was being
>> revised by their lawyers and they would send it as soon as it was
>> ready.  Since I hadn't heard from AGIS in a while, I sent another
>> note to AGIS and was told they now require DS3 connections to four
>> exchange points.  No idea what happened to that peering agreement
>> from January.
>> 
>> MCI told me in February '96 that their peering agreement as
>> on hold pending review by their lawyers and they would let me know
>> when it was ready.  The last response I've received from MCI is the
>> person in charge of peering had changed.  No word from the new guy.
>> And MCI took their peering policies off their web page.  No idea
>> what happened to MCI's policies in the mean time.
>> 
>> Since March of 1995 (yes '95) I've gone through three product managers
>> for Sprintlink who have told me their peering agreement is on the way,
>> under legal review, on hold, or being revised.  DRA met Sprint's peering
>> 'requirements' a couple of times now.  But by the time I hear back from
>> their product manager du jure, they've changed their requirements again.
>> 
>> I'm puzzled why these providers seem to have new peers show up at the
>> same time they are telling me new peerings are on 'hold.'  Should I
>> start taking this personally?  If you don't intend to peer with other
>> providers, why not say so?  Why go through the trouble of making
>> peering questionaires and listing peering requirements, when you are
>> just going to come up with a new excuse if you don't want to peer
>> with the other provider.
>> 
>> >They happen to
>> >be business deals that have $0 attached to them for all sorts
>> >of reasons Sean D et al explained far more eloquently than I could,
>> >but they are still business agreements. Just like any other contract,
>> >be in breach at your peril.
>> 
>> Breach of contract is a civil matter, not criminal.  If you have a
>> peering agreement that says thou shalt not next-hop third-party routes,
>> and they do, you get to terminate the agreement and/or sue the other
>> provider, not arrest them.
>> 
>> People seem to be very quick to call things they don't like illegal.
>> Not all misrouted packets are the result of illegal activities, most
>> of them are just misrouted packets.  MCI didn't plan to send me packets
>> across mae-east, they just happened to believe some bad routing
information.
>> 
>> If you are going to start arresting people simply because packets are
>> misrouted, big providers misroute a lot more packets than little providers
>> simply due to size.  This is a dangerous game to start playing because
>> it can easily blow up in your face.
>> 
>> >Which leaves the case where you send traffic to say ISP X
>> >*without* any form of peering agreement with ISP X. Contracts
>> >with the IXP should prevent this from happening. If you
>> >try this, I hope they filter your MAC address.
>> 
>> Some IXPs do this, but the operators aren't always able to keep up with
>> the changing arrangements of the various providers and end up blackholing
>> a bunch of traffic every so often for varying lengths of time.  The routing
>> protocols have problems dealing with networks which don't have the 'shared-
>> fate' property.
>> 
>> Most other IXP contracts are silent about relationships between ISPs.
>> -- 
>> Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
>>   Affiliation given for identification not representation
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Alan Hannan
>Not Employed Networking, Ltd.
>email: alan at mindvision.com.
>phone: 402/488-0238
>
>
________________________________________________________
	Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer
    ACSI - Advanced Data Servics - ATM/IP Backbone 
	  NOC - 800-291-7889 - noc at acsi.net