nanog mailing list archives
RE: ratios
From: "Daniel Golding" <dgolding () sockeye com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:05:01 -0400
I have some trouble seeing why folks are so interested in meeting or debating peering requirements set out by carriers that have made it quite clear that they are not taking new peers. Most of the published requirements from these carriers serve two functions - to prevent new peers, and to depeer those who are felt to be not worthy. And even the latter is tenuous - most bilateral peering agreements allow for cancellation at will for absolutely no cause. Peering is a business relationship. Refusing to peer does not make one bad, nor does it damn the peering coordinator to eternal damnation. It also does not reflect on those who work for the carrier in other roles, especially those brave enough to post to NANOG on peering matters. Some folks take exception to having ANY sort of peering requirements, like the person who told me that they thought a carrier that required bicoastal peering and an OC-12 network has peering requirements "worse than UUNET". Peering requirements, especially rational ones like multiple location peering, are not in any way bad. If you don't approve of a carrier's peering policy, you have a couple options... You can publicly denounce them on a forum like this, which has doubtful effect. You can turn away their sales folks, the next time they try to sell you transit. However, if you say "I won't buy transit from you, because you won't peer from me", don't expect any sort of reaction other than "goodbye", because there is no lost revenue potential - you would never have purchased transit in any case. However, if you say "because you won't peer with other large networks, it decreases the quality of your network, so I won't buy your transit". They may be more effective. However, that needs to happen much more than the sales people hear "I won't buy transit from you because I'm a peer". You can take it out on individuals who you feel are responsible, by refusing to do business with them or hire them in the future. This is very tricky, as all employees of a carrier are not in any way responsible for a carrier's peering policy. Of course, if you get some weasel who comes in for a job interview, with "senior peering engineer" on their resume, and brags about his role in depeering, say, PSI, then I suppose such persons deserve what they get. However, it's rare that this comes up. Additionally, punishing folks for enforcing rational peering requirements is counterproductive. I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally, and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM To: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: ratiosPlus, wtf is this clause about announcing 5000 routes? What a crock of s**t! This really encourages aggregation, doesn't it?And even AS6461 barely squeaks by with 5571 routes the last time I checked a couple weeks ago. I don't think this policy is for real - if they actually enforce it then it will completely change the tier-1 landscape. Here's few more stats I just checked: Verio AS2914 - 1430 prefixes L3 AS3356 4168 prefixes Genuity AS1 - 7406 prefixes -Ralph
Current thread:
- Re: ratios, (continued)
- Re: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: ratios Richard A Steenbergen (May 08)
- Re: ratios E.B. Dreger (May 08)
- Re: ratios Leo Bicknell (May 07)
- Re: ratios Scott Granados (May 07)
- Re: ratios E.B. Dreger (May 07)
- Re: ratios Richard Irving (May 08)
- Re: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 08)
- Re: ratios Ralph Doncaster (May 09)
- RE: ratios Daniel Golding (May 09)
- RE: ratios Scott Granados (May 09)
- Re: ratios Richard A Steenbergen (May 09)
- RE: ratios william (May 09)
- Re: ratios Richard A Steenbergen (May 09)
- RE: ratios Stephen J. Wilcox (May 09)