ratios

Thu May 9 17:17:38 UTC 2002

I actually think this is put very well.  I know that in my case I'd 
prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy.  
For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet 
for example.  I realize there are many other factors including 
relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me 
is their willingness to peer and grow their networks.  I wouuld think 
especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly 
technical as possible and not venture in to the personal.  Easier said 
than done I realize.  However, strong arguments for using networks with 
open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers 
who don't wish to peer.

The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically 
acknowledge that fact.  If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should 
just not have a peering policy.

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:

> 
> I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or
> debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite
> clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements
> from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to
> depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous -
> most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for
> absolutely no cause.
> 
> Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad,
> nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does
> not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially
> those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take
> exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who
> told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an
> OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering
> requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are
> not in any way bad.
> 
> If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple
> options...
> 
> You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful
> effect.
> 
> You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you
> transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you
> won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye",
> because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased
> transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other
> large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy
> your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen
> much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because
> I'm a peer".
> 
> You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing
> to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as
> all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's
> peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job
> interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about
> his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what
> they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing
> folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive.
> 
> I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally,
> and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by
> personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
> 
> - Daniel Golding
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > Ralph Doncaster
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM
> > To: nanog at merit.edu
> > Subject: Re: ratios
> >
> >
> >
> > > Plus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes?  What a crock of
> > > s**t!  This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?
> >
> > And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked
> > a couple weeks ago.  I don't think this policy is for real - if they
> > actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape.
> > Here's few more stats I just checked:
> > Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes
> > L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes
> > Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes
> >
> > -Ralph
> >
> >
> 