Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)

E.B. Dreger eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Fri May 10 18:14:34 UTC 2002


CL> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:29:23 +0100
CL> From: Chrisy Luke

[ snipped ]


CL> While nobody has tried to take a "Tier-1" to court for what
CL> could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers
CL> will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of
CL> connectivity to *your* network is so small from their
CL> perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain,
CL> they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience,
CL> and having seen this done in black and white). The words used
CL> are along the lines of "that is what happens when you connect
CL> to a non-tier-1, like us".

Now, as much as I'd not expect C&W to peer with us, look at
PSINet.  Were they small?  What about EXDS?  Those peering paths
were to provide better-<insert various metrics> to the eyeballs.

I'd argue that both are/were significant.  And as much as it's a
good thing to not require everyone to peer with everyone (n^2
would be out of control), it would also be bad if the entire
world depended on a single ASN.

I agree that a line must be drawn, but disagree with where
certain carriers draw the line.  But I suppose that we're
insignificant to them, and they probably don't even care about
selling _transit_ to someone so small.  [Not that this is
inherently bad... just be up front about it like L3, and tell
people what the minimum is.]

I guess the C&W slogan is also rubbing me the wrong way.
"Delivering on the Internet promise" seems to imply that traffic
gets there reliably. ;-)  [Note that I'm impressed with the good
community support... not just bashing C&W.]

Note that this is not peculiar to the Internet.  Look at the EDI
world, and what happened to ICC with Sterling and GE.  _That_,
IMHO, is a much more clear-cut case of anti-competitive behavior.


--
Eddy

Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to
be blocked.




More information about the NANOG mailing list