The large ISPs and Peering

Jeb R. Linton jeblinton at
Thu Jul 26 04:20:43 UTC 2001

Vijay and Steve have pretty much hit it on the head as far as the
(apparently not-so-) clear reasons for this effort.

Majdi, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that this isn't
speculation on something that could or should be done, it's commentary on
something that has been done.

Regardless my opinion (and apparently most others') that this is an
advantageous move for the large providers, actions speak loader than words.
*They* judged that this is the financially sensible thing to do, and they
acted on this judgement.

- Jeb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog at [mailto:owner-nanog at]On Behalf Of
> Majdi S. Abbas
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:42 PM
> To: Vijay Gill
> Cc: nanog at
> Subject: Re: The large ISPs and Peering
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:03:48PM -0400, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.
> 	I was in a hurry when I wrote this, and I probably should
> have clarified a bit more:
> > Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers
> were given the
> > chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to
> suck, it will
> > suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping
> > equipment into competitors colos to provide service.
> 	I was mostly responding to the Level(3) in the poster's comment;
> if something like this were to happen, Equinix and PAIX are definitely
> the preferred vendors in this situation.
> 	I think the distinction should be made between colo in the sense
> the original poster was using it (AboveNet, Level(3), etc.)
> -- colocation
> provided by someone who would typically sell you transit
> along with your
> colocation.  And colo in the PAIX/Equinix sense, where the vendor most
> explicitly will *not* sell you transit, because they strive
> to maintain
> a carrier-neutral environment.  Many small providers are not
> typically in
> the latter (although some very definitely are), but certainly
> exist in the
> former.  It's two different markets, so expecting that you
> are 'screwed' if
> your carrier(s) of choice are not there is not really correct
> -- the carriers
> will go where the customers are, regardless of where they
> might choose to
> meet.
> 	I realize I was not clear on this earlier :)
> > Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained
> at the edges for
> > the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories
> regarding speed
> > of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's
> would fill a book.
> 	Yes, but dark fiber is a perfectly legitimate metro option.  The
> cities mentioned in this thread are by and large major
> markets where dark
> fiber is available.  You can do this without any joint
> facility.  5 years
> ago, it may have made sense.  With the increasing
> availability of fiber in
> these major markets, I'm not sure that the expenditures are
> justifiable in
> the long term (beyond the next two to three years).
> > So looks like some people have figured out that
> provisioning a dark fiber
> > cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than
> say, getting new
> > STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their
> topology.
> 	I'm not disagreeing with this, for obvious reasons.
> > Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc.
>  Once you have
> > this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear
> and much easier
> > than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department)
> provision new
> > circuits.
> 	Again, not disparaging the incredible usefulness of dark fiber.
> 	--msa

More information about the NANOG mailing list