Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at ianai.net
Sun Dec 9 03:23:00 UTC 2012


On Dec 08, 2012, at 21:14 , Darius Jahandarie <djahandarie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Dan Luedtke <mail at danrl.de> wrote:
>> Off-topic but somehow important to me:
>>> HE has an open-peering policy (AFAIK);
>>> which basically means that tunnelbroker.net traffic is free for
>>> hetzner.de
>> 
>> Is that true?
>> That would be great!
> 
> Just because companies A and B don't have a customer relationship
> doesn't mean all their interactions with each other are free.
> 
> So no, it's not true. Costs come from needing to buy bigger routers,
> bigger waves or fiber to the exchanges, bigger ports on the exchanges,
> etc.
> 
> "Peering is a scam."

The vast majority of AS-AS boundaries on the Internet are settlement free peering.  I guess that makes the Internet a scam.

As for the costs involved, "free" is a relative term.  Most people think of peering as "free" because there is zero marginal cost.  Kinda.  Obviously if you think of your 10G IX port as a sunk cost, pushing 11 Gbps over it is not 'free' as you have to upgrade.  But again, most people understand what is meant.

Bigger waves & bigger routers are not due to peering, they are due to customer traffic - you know, the thing ISPs sell.  Put another way, this is a Good Thing (tm).  Or at least it should be.  Unless, of course, you are trying to convince us all that selling too many units of your primary product is somehow bad.

Peering allows you, in most cases, to lower the Cost Of Goods Sold on that product.  Again, usually a Good Thing (tm).  Unless you are again trying to convince us all that selling at a higher margin (we'll ignore the lower latency & better overall experience) is somehow bad.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick




More information about the NANOG mailing list