AOL & Cogent

Mon Dec 30 15:32:21 UTC 2002

Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look really good?

At 9:50 -0500 12/30/02, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul 
>Vixie wrote:
>>  there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind
>>  of sense.  peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
>
>This depends on how you define business decision.  I view a business
>decision as one where a company selling a product gets to make
>choices about that product - but, and this is a big part - remains
>in business.  Having the product work in the first place is a
>business requirement.  I don't buy into the logic that making a
>(known) broken product is a business decision, as no one makes a
>business decision with a known, up-front outcome of failure.
>
>A business decision is something like choosing to put cheap plastic
>trim in a car and sell it cheap, or the best Italian leather and
>sell it for a lot of money.  Building a car that doesn't break down
>every 10 miles and needs to be towed back to the garage isn't a
>business decision, it's a requirement to be in the car business at
>all.
>
>Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy
>thing we all run work.  As we've seen with companies like PSI,
>those who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up
>dead.  So there are really two things to talk about.  From a
>technological point of view what's the minimum amount of peering
>necessary to make things work, and then from a business perspective
>what further optimizations can be made to make your customers more
>happy, or reduce your costs, or both.
>
>Trying to make it all a business decision is as wrong as trying to
>make it all about technology.  Looking at only one side gives you
>have the picture.
>
>In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul 
>Vixie wrote:
>>  ...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market
>>  you want to be in.  you can then compete in that market.  if everybody who
>>  could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of
>>  per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port
>>  revenue for exchange point operators.  where's the market in that?  how
>>  could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
>
>Argument #1, don't peer with the little guy because it takes revenue
>away from ISP's in general.
>
>In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul 
>Vixie wrote:
>>  as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering
>>  other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the
>>  f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever.  it's actually
>>  easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content
>>  peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with.
>
>Argument #2, it's easy for me, a little guy to get peering because
>I don't compete with the ISP's, I just buy from them.
>
>So which is it?  Do you peer with the little guys who don't run
>networks because content peering is good, or do you not peer with
>them because it forces them to buy from somebody, and if everyone
>does that it's good for ISP's in general?  It seems to me you want
>to have your cake and eat it too.
>
>--
>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
>
>Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Attachment converted: Superbook HD:Untitled 337 (????/----) (000F0AD7)

-- 

David Diaz
dave at smoton.net [Email]
pagedave at smoton.net [Pager]
www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons