Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria?
Imagine:
AT&T, C&W and UUNET announce new peering criteria. They will only peer
with companies without the letter "P" in their name.
PSI, failing to meet the publicly announced peering criteria, must buy
transit or face the termination with extreme prejudice of traffic exchange
with other providers. The spokesperson for the Three said, "All PSI has
to do is change its name, its not our fault, we have no choice. Its in
the peering criteria."
This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but
we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we could
change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the tariff. So
you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do.
Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf. Peering
is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt more by the
termination of peering.
If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate
the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it
in place.
Also sprach Sean Donelan
Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria?
...
This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but
we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we
could change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the
tariff. So you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do.
No doubt...that is *so* true.
To extend the comparison of ISP peering to the telco world...I found
this ruling from the KY PSC entertaining and enlightning. Of particular
interest to compare with the current C&W - PSI issue are issues 7 and 9
from this ruling, and to a lesser degree issue 18. Check it out.
Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf.
Peering is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt
more by the termination of peering.
If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll
terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll
fight to keep it in place.
Actually...I would say its more complicated than that. Any action taken
by a corporation would be a positive thing. If the perception of
severing peering is that it would hurt your company then the company
won't do it. Now, it does get complicated in that you might see a
company use a thought process along the lines of "Peering will hurt us,
but it will hurt our competitor more, and hurting our competitor
benefits us, and the benefit from hurting our competitor is greater than
the hurt from severing the peering, so ultimately its a benefit to us to
sever the peer"
Of course, this all assumes that companies think through these things
logically, which I think is folly (especially for telco/ISPs)
If it will hurt you more than it will hurt them, then you aren't a really
a "peer", and in that case, the disparity is resolved by the use of a
service contract whereby you pay them money in exchange for connectivity.
/vijay