Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?

Joseph T. Klein jtk at
Sun May 6 18:31:34 UTC 2001

It would be interesting to note if the C&W policy change is reflected
in a quantifiable deterioration of 3561's placement on the CAIDA skitter

I would like to think that Draconian peering policies leads to economic
pain. It seems to be worthy of note that AGIS and PSI tried to use the
"pay me don't peer" card before they deteriorated. It seems in some
cases more an act of financial desperation rather than acting in the
best long term interest of the network or the customers.

The more open networks move quickly to center stage while the large
networks build walls in moves of quite desperation. 3561 was once the
"North Star" of the Internet constellation. IMHO said stringent
peering policies moves 3561 in a direction that is not in the best
interest of the C&W customers or the C&W stockholders.

   "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..."

At 2:44 AM -0500 06-05-2001, Tony Mumm wrote:
>I feel I have to comment on the second point of your e-mail.  It 
>makes clear points as the how each provider is going to take full 
>responsibility for their peering decisions.
>I have seen a trend where Tier 1's (nation-wide large carriers - 
>don't want to debate the term too much) are willing to offer transit 
>contracts to regional or tier2 nationals at cost, or only at a very 
>small margin.  This move by C&W to begin charging for those 
>providers seems to be a very large departure from this method.
>As we all know, the value of the big player, is how many people they 
>are connected to.  It seems that providers are willing to take a a 
>risk by either peering or selling very cheap transit in order to 
>appear as a well connected ISP to the rest of the Internet.
>My concern now, after reading this, is how do I know value the ISPs 
>that I buy transit from.  What is the guarantees that I have that 
>the bandwidth I expect from a transit carrier is going to be 
>I have been a long time customer of C&W well into the MCI days. 
>While I have had my difficulties, I feel that they have been a solid 
>However, it has been a struggle lately to keep more and more traffic 
>on their backbone.   This whole thread seems to be the cause.
>In summary, my question is this:
>	Does a peering policy like this make sense?
>My answer to this is:  It may, but it is forsaking two different 
>types of customers.    The first, the tier 1/2 customers that is now 
>enforcing a tariff against.  The second, regional carriers that can 
>no longer afford to purchase second rate transit.
>So, how can I justify paying C&W for this bandwidth that day by day 
>may be losing value.
>I'd be interested to hear how many people that feel that C&W's 
>decisions affects their direction for connectivity.
>On Sunday, May 6, 2001, at 01:27 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
>>2) Is C&W simply flaking out? Will they end up screwing themselves?
>>#2 - C&W's peering decision makers are certainly taking a risk, here.
>>It is devoutly hoped that their poor judgement comes back to haunt
>>them. On the other hand, perhaps they'll experience a change of
>>heart, and be filled with the spirit of Internet Brotherhood.
>>Needless to say, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-nanog at [mailto:owner-nanog at]On Behalf
>>>Of Richard A. Steenbergen
>>>Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 1:08 AM
>>>To: John Payne
>>>Cc: David Schwartz; nanog at
>>>Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
>>>On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote:
>>>>On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>     Not so fast. While each of his customers is more
>>>>>inconvenienced than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers.
>>>>>The net inconvenience (total number of people inconvenienced
>>>>>multiplied by the average inconvenience to each) might be
>>>>>nearly the same on both sides. As an added bonus, he has
>>>>>someone else to blame.
>>>>That depends.  Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be
>>>>transit free... so there isn't really a hole created.  Sure, the
>>>>smaller guy is going to be paying more on transit rather than
>>>>peering, but C&W customers probably won't notice a thing, other
>>>>than some relief on the congested pipes to the public peering
>>>The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is
>>>the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but
>>>I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question
>>>would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all
>>>likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and
>>>to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know
>>>if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a
>>>low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or
>>>relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the
>>>other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will
>>>be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is
>>>whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got
>>>for free.
>>>Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless
>>>peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic
>>>would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant
>>>reduction in
>>>congestion then there must have been a significant amount of
>>>traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the
>>>biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War
>>>( :P
>>>Richard A Steenbergen <ras at>
>>> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8
>>>18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
>>Version: PGPfreeware 7.0.3 for non-commercial use <>

Joseph T. Klein                                         +1 414 915 7489
Senior Network Engineer                                 jtk at
Adelphia Business Solutions                joseph.klein at

     "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..."
                                                  -- John W. Stewart III

More information about the NANOG mailing list