Exodus/C&W Depeering

Tue Mar 26 18:40:49 UTC 2002

>From the sound of things, it seems that C&W might have been better off migrating 
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)

I am assuming that the reasons it's not happening like this are much more political 
than technical.

-C

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:18:04AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> 
>       On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>     > You mean Exodus are well connected and C&W limit themselves which gives
>     > longer paths and increased latency.
> 
> Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased latency
> probably, increased loss possibly.
> 
> C&W obviously have to have a lot of peering as well, since it's all they
> have to sell to their customers.  However, their peering tends to be
> limited to a small number of peers to whom they have large connections,
> whereas Exodus had a large number of peers to whom they had medium-sized
> connections.  So the average hop-count and as-path length for the Internet
> as a whole are both increased by this action, and nearly all paths
> increase in length for Exodus customers.  So yes, Exodus customers are the
> big losers in the wake of this.
> 
>                                 -Bill
> 
> 