fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

Richard A Steenbergen ras at
Wed Nov 25 23:14:42 UTC 2009

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
> (pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't 
> like this list)
> I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the
> politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has
> comments enabled, and many people with an anti-capitalist bone to pick
> have already availed themselves of that forum to advocate for the
> people's revolution. There are some technical issues that might be of
> more interest and relevance to operators, however.

So now anyone who points out the massive flaws in your statements are
part of an anti-capitalist movement? Any more conspiracy theories you'd
like to put forward? I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I
consider myself very pro-capitalism and it has absolutely no impact on
how I feel about the blatantly wrong and baseless crap you are spewing.

> * One claim I made in my blog post is that traffic increases on the
> Internet aren't measured by MINTS very well. MINTS uses data from
> Meet-me switches, but IX's and colos are pulling x-connects like mad
> so more and more traffic is passing directly through the x-connects
> and therefore not being captured by MINTS. Rate of traffic increase is
> important for regulators as it relates to the cost of running an ISP
> and the need for traffic shaping. Seems to me that MINTS understates
> traffic growth, and people are dealing with it by lighting more dark
> fiber, pulling more fiber, and the x-connects are the tip of the
> iceberg that says this is going on.

This is all completely irrelevent to everything else that has been
discussed so far, but what the hell I'll bite. Traffic on the Internet
is indeed growing rapidly, while the predominate technology for cost
effectively interconnecting the vast majority of the bits (10 Gigabit
Ethernet) has remained relatively static in recent years. Without a cost
effective technology for interconnecting devices in > 10Gbps increments
(40Gbps OC-768 has existed for a while, but is far more expensive than
simply doing 4x10GbE), the only reasonable way to scale a network is to
build your links out of Nx10G bundles. In places with reasonable
crossconnect pricing, it is far cheaper to simply order multiple
crossconnects than it is to pay for DWDM gear, and thus you see a rapid
increase in fiber crossconnects.

> * A number of people said I have no basis for the claim that paid
> peering is on the increase, and it's true that the empirical data is
> slim due to the secretive nature of peering and transit agreements.
> This claim is based on hearsay and on the observation that Comcast now
> has a nationwide network and a very open policy regarding peering and
> paid peering. So if paid peering is only increasing at Comcast, now a
> top 10 network, it's increasing overall.

So in other words, you're admitting that you have absolutely no basis
for your claim, and you're simply making it up based on indirect hearsay 
modified with your own ill-informed conclusions? First intelligent thing 
you've said so far.

If you actually bothered to ask anyone in the industry with experience 
dealing with Comcast, they would tell you that while Comcast initially 
entered the market primarily trying to sell paid peering, they have 
since switched their efforts to primarily selling full transit. There 
are only a certain number of networks who even know what to DO with a 
paid peering product, and a vastly larger number who know what to do 
with a transit product, so it makes perfect sense really.

> * Some other people said I'm not entitled to have an opinion; so much
> for democracy and free speech.

You are not entitled to opine an opinion on a subject matter which you
do not understand, without being called out for it. Sane and rational
people understand when they are talking out their ass and are being
corrected by knowledgable experts, and will shut the hell up and listen.
Sadly this seems to be a skill you lack.

> I'd be glad to hear from anyone who has data or informed opinions on
> these subjects, on-list of off-. The reason you should share is that
> people in Washington and Brussels listen to me, so it's in everybody's
> interest for me to be well-informed; I don't really have an ax to
> grind one way or another, but I do want law and regulation to be based
> on fact, not speculation and ideology.

So far none of the above statements seem to be true.

Richard A Steenbergen <ras at>
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

More information about the NANOG mailing list