In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>,
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely
not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain
absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's
costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
- they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
- they only announce regional routes to Joe
- they use hot potato routing everywhere
in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably
all that Joe is after anyway
Mike.
In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you
paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you
are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them)
--Phil
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to
deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers
of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs
fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.
Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a
significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to
waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth
nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is
nothing.
Deepak Jain
AiNET
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
"dropping OC48 to IXs".
Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many
gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs
anyway....
Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use
similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it
well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but
theres a lot more small ones..
Steve
It's all so much posturing, just like the people who claim they need OC768
now or any time in the near future, or the people who sell 1Mbps customers
on the fact that their OC192 links are important.
If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting the traffic only
once through the system) going through the US backbones I'd be very
surprised.
I switch traffic measured in gbits, and everything is kept on private
peering at the moment (although that is likely to change in the
not-too-distant future).
I doubt I will push more than 200 on the public exchange I am thinking
of joining... Many public exchanges either feature few large carriers,
or large carriers that would not be interested in peering with you,
unless you are a Fortune 500.
--Phil
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400
From: Richard A Steenbergen
If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting
the traffic only once through the system) going through the
US backbones I'd be very surprised.
Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per US
citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo transfer as
conservative for said bandwidth level. (I need to start pumping
more traffic to catch up to my personal fair share!)
Interesting point.
Eddy
My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
--Phil
This also assumes US citizens don't sleep.
>My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
>Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
This also assumes US citizens don't sleep.
and that non-US citizens never send traffic through the US or send
traffic to/from servers in the US.
Given that traffic from Europe to Asia almost always goes via the US,
and given that it isn't unheard of for traffic between major European
ASs to go via the US (e.g. 702 and 9057 right now) then the former
assumption is clearly untrue.
I think the fact that I'm sending this invalidates the second one?
Giles
The original comment I made was regarding the amount of traffic people suggest
they have on their networks.
I know UU, L3, Sprint, Verio etc will carry many gigabits but it was concerning
the average list member rather than the exceptional major player...
Answers so far vary..
Steve