BBN Peering issues (fwd)
paul at vix.com
Tue Aug 18 05:07:15 UTC 1998
howland at Priss.com (Curt Howland) writes:
> The 'Net gives some measure of universal connectivity because it
> was driven at its root by engineering. Who on NANOG, with any real
> world experience in networking, denies that maximum open peering
> benefits everyone?
Well, I dunno if I'm qualified by that measure. At the time I built
networks, I'd built at least one of the largest anywhere. But they
were all small compared to today's second tiers, and I'm not building
networks any more.
But I deny your assertion. Maximum open peering benefits some people
more than others -- specifically the ones who get to charge the most
money yet who pay the least in infrastructure upkeep. A web hosting
company doing shortest-exit (no matter how many peering points they
were at or how much private peering they had) would be an example.
Remember as you puzzle your way through this issue that peering is
only mutually beneficial if the number of bits (not packets) sent by
each side is in the same order of magnitude. If the O(mag)'s differ
then the costs/benefits are one-sided, and the side who is underwriting
wide area transportation costs for people who aren't paying it money
is going to get bent about it.
Anyone with a strong enough constitution to check the archives on this
matter will find that Sean and I had a raging battle here about this
very topic back in 1993 or so. What interests me on this particular
night is my memory of asking Vince "so what about gatekeeper.dec.com?
why should i have to pay to transmit the FTP archives?" Vince didn't
answer because the obvious answer ("gatekeeper should be charging money
so it can cover its costs and the costs of the folks who carry those
bits") was one I was not at that time ready to hear or understand.
La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around
<paul at vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming
pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network)
More information about the NANOG