>Any provider that does not recognize the value of bilateral, no-settlement
>peering anywhere that its cost-effective for both parties (ie: if you have
>traffic destined for me, get it on MY network where I'm being paid to
>carry it and let ME figure the rest out!) deserves what they get.
Zero-settlement peerings open to anyone are demonstrably amount to
subsidies from large peers to small.
No they're not. The load which the small provider presents to you (in the
form of traffic to your CUSTOMERS) is miniscule by comparison.
Further, so is the load you present to THEM.
Finally, and FAR more importantly, the REASON you're having the traffic
dumped to you is that *YOUR CUSTOMER IS PAYING YOU TO GET IT TO THEM*.
If you refuse to perform that job, then your customer should find someone
who will actually live up to the letter and spirit of what your customer
is purchasing from you.
That already was beaten to death. However, i repeat the argument:
Customer A ---[POP] ------------- 1000 miles -----------[POP]
Customer B ------[POP]-1 mile-[POP]
When customers A and B talk Big Provider pays to get them through
1000 miles. Small Provider pays for 1 mile.
So what? Customer A paid you to get the traffic to him.
It is in your best interest to do it. You got paid to do this. If you
can't, Customer A will find Big Provider #2 (or Small Provider #2) who
The first time you tell a CUSTOMER as "Big provider" that "the reason you
can't reach Customer B, who you think is important, is because they aren't
connected to us and their provider won't *pay us to transport YOUR DATA* you
are going to find out, quickly, what the Customer's response to that is.
You might find out from their corporate counsel; if not, you'll definitely
find out from their purchasing department (or person) -- when they cancel
your service and move somewhere else.
Second, if Small Provider who *does* have capacity to that exchange point
finds out what you're up to, expect to have that widely used in press
materials and marketing efforts.
Note that i didn't even talk about less measurabe, but way too
more important things like hosting of information suppliers.
Say, Big Provider connects 1000 web sites; Small Provider hosts
1 site -- benefit from peering in terms of Web site diversity to
the Big Provider's customers is 0.1%. To Small Provider's
customers the benefit of peering is 99.9%.
Not if you're a customer of Big Provider and want to get there. Your
provider either PROVIDES or you find someone who will.
You seem to forget the middle letter of ISP is *SERVICE*. You want to
talk to someone with a valid IP address on the Internet, your PROVIDER is
responsible for seeing that you can get to an exchange point where can be
found the network that serves them.
BOTH providers have an obligation here, and its not to each other. Its to
If the receiving network then refuses to accept the traffic destined for
a customer WHO IS PAYING THEM TO TRANSPORT IT, the customer on that end
has a very legitimate beef with their provider and IMHO has every right to
walk away and possibly even sue, contract or no (the provider just breached
their material obligations).
Zero-settlements work only when peers are of comparable size.
Any attempt to extort pressure to force it upon anyone simply
causes large folks to flee.
Anyone short-sighted enough who fails to understand that bilateral,
no-settlement PEERING (*NOT* transit) is in everyone's best interest
deserves what the market does to them.
I presume that (1) the people you peer with are clueful and don't do stupid
things on a regular basis, (2) they don't try to point default at you, etc.
That's a given in these discussions.