AOL & Cogent

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at
Mon Dec 30 20:09:45 UTC 2002

On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, 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.

Which is my thought exactly. 

Surely a business decision around a technological product must make
technological sense before it can make business sense else as you say what you
sell is a broken product.

Technology says you should make sure you have good connectivity on the major
arteries of your network .. if that doesnt make business sense then you're
business model is wrong!

Looking for sales is fine but if it goes against the founding technological and
business model then its not going to happen!


> 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:
> > 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 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.

More information about the NANOG mailing list