Sprint peering policy

Mon Jul 1 20:25:07 UTC 2002

On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
> 
> I don't think "peering could not overcome corrupt financial officers and
> $3B in debt" equates to "peering has no relation to financial
> difficulties" exactly.
> 
> Here's a fun exercise:  Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
> ---
> 
> Apples and oranges.  Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
> they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP".  Wcom would likely
> not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.  They gain
> absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.  Wcom's
> costs only increase since they need "more ports".

Not apples and oranges. See the subject of this thread. The point
is that they -do- have peering with the other 'big guys', who are
largely inaccessible to the rest of the world as peers due to the
insane peering requirements. Your statement:

> > The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peering, proves 
> > that peering has no relation to financial difficulties (in my mind, at
> > least)

would argue that such peering gives them no financial benefit. Or, to
look at it from the other side, it would argue that the rest of the
ISPs out there (which include many which are much larger than Joe
Sixpack) would see no financial benefit if they were able to get such
peering themselves. If UUNET dropped their 5 largest peers, do you
think it would not hurt them financially?

I don't expect them to peer with Joe Sixpack ISP. I do expect them to
peer with ISPs who have at least a reasonable backbone of their own
and could account for, say, several hundred megabits/sec in exchanged
traffic.

If the big guy's cost only increases (be it Sprint, UUNET, or anyone
else) then why will he want to peer even with someone who does meet
his requirements?

-c