Ungodly packet loss rates

As one who is living this senerio on a daily basis, I can tell you it's
frustrating and upsetting.

Actually, peering requirements today are the first effective barrier
to entry into the ISP business that have been successfully realized
and I don't mean that in a restraint of trade sense. CIX settlements
didn't do the trick and NAP fees didn't either. :slight_smile: But the cost of
peering today makes transit look reasonable in many more cases. I
sympathize with your frustration and with the frustration of the large
ISPs in dealing with the huge caseloads of peering requests.

The model that makes sense to me, is for the largest networks to exchange
traffic through private interconnects, and for them to treat the
aggregated NAP traffic as another large ISP. The NAP is then used for the
2nd tier and smaller providers to exchange traffic with each other, as
well as a collection point to gather up traffic for the large networks.

Well, yes, but what if the large players satisfied their need to interconnect
with their largest peers at private interconnects? What would be their
to maintain good connectivity and good routing to the open interconnects? I
think their enthusiasm for maintaining good connectivity to the open
might wane, much as their enthusiasm for CIX with its mandated peering has
The disappearance (more accurately, the crippling) of the open
interconnects will
mean the barrier to entry will become truly awesome, something like a dozen
private DS-3 interconnects to get full routing.

speaking as the PacBell NAP technical consultant

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~
Kent W. England Six Sigma Networks
1655 Landquist Drive, Suite 100 Voice/Fax: 619.632.8400
Encinitas, CA 92024 kwe@6SigmaNets.com
Experienced Internet Consulting ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~