RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

Gordon,

Lack of a global undisciplined peering and charging more for connections
to "customer - ISP's" do not go hand-in-hand.

Net Glossary (for effect):

Bi-lateral: You both offer each other equality in important areas.

Non-Binding: I woke up on the wrong side of the bed - See Ya!

MAE/NAP: A place to trade better connectivity under certain conditions
of equality - OR a place to run default free until I get caught.

I believe that this is purely a model of economics, progressiveness and
network protection. UUNet, MCI, and Sprint for the most part have
always been the networks that were desirable to peer with at meet
points. In the beginning, it was relatively easy to make that happen if
you as a smaller network had the money to get to an appropriate NAP/MAE.
You had to have a technical competency level, sales pitch and possible
friend-in-the-biz to help you along, and if you had those things, you
effectively had the secret handshake and you were in.

Just because something like this worked in the past, doesn't mean that
it will work in the future, and today is the future.

The big Net's have been engineering private exchange points to move away
from the mess at the MAE's for a while now. This should have been
"Ah-Ha #1". Next, the newest NAPS don't have the level of Big Net
participation as perhaps everyone thought they would, this should have
been "Ah-Ha #2". And finally, with all of the rumor (and resulting fact)
that "Net A, B and C will only peer with you if you are at X, Y and Z at
OC-48 <g>" should have been "Ah-Ha #3"

It's my opinion that it should come as no surprise that a change is
being made in the way the Net carries data. This is like any business,
you must be good at prediction and you must be good at picking your
suppliers. If you did not predict this (and don't have a fall-back
plan), then you probably won't be able to predict the next major obvious
event. If you think that your suppliers will provide you with favorable
terms - make sure you have a plan when and if those terms change.

Best regards,

David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm)
dave@fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net
FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions

2

you seem to me to imply that the only way small players had to peer with
the big boys at the NAPs....ie run default free....was by cheating, via
failing to use "next hop self" in routing. That did happen. but the majors
were also participants in explicit peering agreements with upwards of 40
to 60 other players.....some have told me so directly.

how could they have figured it reasonable 6 to 12 months ago and now turn
around and end it in anything other than a sheer naked anti competitive
power grab?

Peter lothberg expressed the intent of the majors quite well ...... a
handful of huge players worldwide..... (5 to 8?) and everyone else a
customer.

that's NOT the internet I want to see.

3

The 'majors' would be damn fools to try and dominate completely. I can
think of nothing which will subject them to government regulation faster -
led by Congress - than striving to exercise total economic control of the
net. Especially when government itself uses the net to reach the people,
and vice versa, and the swing of the mood is toward competition in the
communications marketplace, not concentration.

Who thinks otherwise? "Those [engineers?] who don't know history, are
doomed to repeat it."

Dave Hughes
(who is not in this newsgroup, but is happy to post anyway)