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.
Small providers outnumber large providers by quite a lot. In fact,
most traffic is generated by customers of small ISPs.
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*.
The customers are paying for connectivity to other customers, not
for connectivity to ISPs. They don't care less if their peer is
connected to a small or a large ISP.
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.
I do not think that leftish political activists and radical idealists
are a large segment of market. The rest would simply go to a provider
who sells better and cheaper connectivity, without worrying too much
about figures on the provider's balance sheet.
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.
Now, if Big Provider competes for customer B it'll have to sell
service for cost of 500 miles, whereas Small Provider
can sell is for the cost of 1 mile.
The situation is the same at Customer A's location (where Small ISP #2
Now, the traffic between Small ISPs #1 and #2 is close to non-existent;
so they simply dump 99.9% of traffic to the Big ISP at exchange points and
do transit over a cheap low-bandwidth line they buy from the same
or other Big ISP.
Essentially, they get benefits of global infrastructure without contributing
anything to it. Of course, large ISPs then have to pass the costs to
customers, placing them at a competitive disadvantage.
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
That is not happening now. Sprint tested waters back then with CIX,
and the expected negative customer response was zero, nada, nil, zilch.
Which only confirms that customers do not care about particular ISP's,
they only care about bits getting delivered.
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.
Huh? The small ISP (Mukhosransknet, for example) who can't reach Sprint or
UUNET or BBN is bust by definition. The large ISP who can't reach the
same small ISP doesn't suffer at all -- chances are that nobody will ever
notice. So the small ISP is forced to buy connectivity to the Big ISP,
and the problem (from the point of view of the Big ISP's customers) is
That's particularly true because most small ISPs do not provide any
popular content, so customers of big ISPs have little reason to worry
about unreacheability of small ISPs .
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.
How idealistic. Customers terminate service all the time for a million of
various reasons. Somehow more customers are subscribing, so those
departments just don't care.
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.
Just to have it pointed out that this is a free country and that
large ISPs have right to make their own business decisions?
You cannot make anti-trust case because there _is_ a competition
among a number of large ISPs. It's not like one large ISP opressing
all others. It's more like reach "oppressing" the poor by refusing
to give away their assets to any tramp from a street.
Sure, such a press campaighn is possible, and will attract some
attention from leftist fringe. The level-headed people would take
it to reflect on the respectability and the agenda of the campaighner.
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.
Find me a person who wants to look at Mukhosransk's city council web page.
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.
Ah, what a bunch of rhetoric.
BOTH providers have an obligation here, and its not to each other. Its to
Obligation to whom? To the Supreme Deity of All Networks? Or the
ghost of Comrade Lenin? That obligation is certainly not in service
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).
You may want to take a look at a service contract someday. There's
not even a remote hint of implicit or explicit obligation to provide
If _you_ sell service with obligation to provide universal connectivity,
i (and my lawyer) want to sign up. He (the lawyer) just loves to shake
damages from likes of companies which promise Harriers for $100000.
Can you statements in this public forum to be construed as an official
position of MCSNET?
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.
Sorry, buddy, i'm not interested in everyone's best interest. I just
don't care about everyone. I'm admittedly interested in the bottom line
in my account statement. I wouldn't expect large ISPs to do differently.
After all, they exist to generate profit. If they would start doing
charity and brotherhood of all people stuff instead of business their
shareholders will be rightfully upset.
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.
I wouldn't trust people who can't comprehend realities of everyday life
to have a clue about routing.