PSINet and C&W peering

Pete Kruckenberg pete at kruckenberg.com
Tue Jun 5 18:30:44 UTC 2001


On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote:

> > From: Christian Nielsen <cnielsen at nielsen.net>
> > BTW, to solve these types of problems, Smaller companies need to band
> > together and start peering with each other in the local metro area.

Hear hear. The local exchanges that are not corrupted by
their sponsors' "upsell" agenda have somehow sustained
themselves, because they solve a problem for their
participants.

Local exchanges (regional exchange points, community
internet exchanges) are becoming more critical parts of the
infrastructure. With the convergence of the metro network
(look at the growth rate of investment in the metro network
compared to the national network--that's not just for
national-network connectivity), voice moving onto data
networks (80% of voice traffic stays within the local
exchange) and the migration of new applications to the
Internet making the Internet Matter, traffic within the
metro area will become a significant, if not dominant,
segment of the overall traffic.

> Until the smaller companies get bought out by a national
> provider who has no interest in peering.
>
> Quite frankly, it seems that most smaller companies have
> no clue what the heck peering is or why it's good.
> I've approached a few, and none seem to get it.

I've talked to a lot of companies about a lot of different
kinds of technology. I found that if you find a problem they
have that they really care about, or that you can educate
them to care about, typically they will appreciate the value
of the solution, and be motivated to get it.

Talking to a small company about peering (which they would
be unlikely to know about, since I was probably the first to
approach them) resulted in blank stares and a quick
dismissal. Talking to a company about saving money on their
transit, improving performance and reliability, diversifying
routing paths, adding value to their customers,
differentiating themselves from competition, and doing so in
a manner catered to their skill-set, resulted in most
companies at least acknowledging that the solution (peering)
was right for them, and many of them moving forward. Fitting
it into their business and financial models was a different
hurdle, but much more easily overcome when they were
helping.

As you might suspect, there are different methods to sell to
the networking guy vs. the business manager. Since the
networking guy rarely has a company check-book, I found the
most effective approach was to convince both of them, or at
a minimum the business guy.

> One (cable company, mind you) wanted to *charge more for
> peering than for transit*.  They thought that we would
> be getting some sort of "priority access" to their
> network, and wanted to charge a hefty price... and this
> was talking to a net admin, not a droid.  Jeez.

This doesn't seem too far off from the state of peering in
general today. Isn't that what ratios and traffic levels and
geography policies are all about, enforcing that peers are
somehow "equal" and deserve to share traffic freely, and the
rest of us can pay for "priority access"?

Pete.
pete at commix.org

[ Support your neighborhood and community network projects. ]
[ Create a community Internet exchange. Ask me how.         ]




More information about the NANOG mailing list