Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Nov 30 09:00:11 CST 2010

On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> BTW: The attempt failed.  Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3.  GTEi blinked, and the rest is history.
> Patrick - 
> Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In 
> summer of 1997, GTEi did indeed have a dispute with Exodus regarding 
> traffic levels on peering interconnects, and indicated that it would 
> cease peering.  On 16 Sep 1998, the dispute was resolved when Exodus 
> signed an agreement with GTEi which was covered by non-disclosure at
> Exodus's request[1][2].
Well... Yes, Exodus signed an agreement under NDA and GTE got
their ounce of flesh from Exodus, but, Patrick is correct in that GTE
did not continue to extort GC and Above and got a much smaller
reward than they were initially seeking (pound of flesh).

The result of the NDA, however, was that from outside perceptions, it
all looked like GTEi blinked, which, was very good for the industry.
It would have been better if certain players on the Exodus side hadn't
been quite so spineless, but, I guess to satisfy Godwin's law one can
only say they were following the example of the French in early WWII.

>> Peering is a business relationship.  If your company can make more or spend less by peering with another company, you should do it.  If you do not consummate that relationship, you are hurting your business.  This should be the only reason to peer or not peer.
> Correct, and indeed that was basic principle in operation during the 
> GTEi/Exodus peering dispute.
Sort of. It was clearly in GTEi and Exodus interest to continue exchanging
traffic and obviously would have hurt both companies had actual
depeering occurred. The question is which company would have been
harmed the most and thus succumbed to settling the dispute.


More information about the NANOG mailing list