UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET
peering?
Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something
like ''networks of equal size''.
The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global
players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer.
--Peter
It doesn't necessarily equate to networks of equal size, but of equal
value. Value can be obtained by managing a large network, having a large
consumer base, or having a significant amount of content.
All things are not created equal and the various "values" have to be
weighed to determine what a peer is, or is not. Alot of pipes going
nowhere with no users has no value. Alot of content without any pipes
also has no value as no users can gain access to it.
-jh-
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet
pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their
network.
Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.
Okay. How much traffic do you pass over your network?
Alec
Yes, but what is this measurement? 1 and 5 Mb/s? 10 and 50 Mb/s?
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet
pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their
network.
Are you saying the UU should pay you for peering?
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet
pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their
network.
This same argument comes up every time! We all wish there could be
nice clean technical criteria but there isn't any way to measure
*value* except by asking the customers, which in practice seems to be
done by unplugging the links and seeing who gets more complaints.
Attempts to require X network size are just a crude way to codify the
size "large enough that *my* customers will be unhappy if I'm not able
to reach you".
The value of connectivity from UUNET to any given network -- i.e., the
desire of UUNET customers to reach ISP-X customers minus the desire of
ISP-X customers to reach UUNET customers -- varies widely in magnitude
and even sign, so I think it's reasonable of them to negotiate the
number on a case-by-case basis instead of only free peering or else
paid transit from the price schedule. Everyone seems to be upset
because the outcome is uncertain, less clear-cut than the status quo.
But if you think about it, there are many cases in which the value
*almost* justifies free peering, and if a bit of cash exchanges hands
then the table tilts -- in favor of better connectivity for everyone.
And I'm sure the NDA is just to avoid ISP-X whining "why should we pay
$N when ISP-Y didn't pay nearly that much" and the subsequent
explanation that ISP-Y adds value by hosting Very Popular Site. They
could explain this n^2 times, or they could just require NDAs. There
will be less gossip-fighting in the latter case.
It cannot be a case of an evil giant trying to dominate the industry
because UUNET isn't so big that they can sway the entire business
model singlehandledly. UUNET must have set this policy because they
feel it's in their interest. And I can see their point. It *does*
make sense.