nanog mailing list archives
RE: peering, derivatives, and big brother
From: "George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 19:36:06 -0800
-----Original Message----- From: Jeff Wheeler Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:36 AM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: peering, derivatives, and big brother A read through this New York Times article on derivatives clearing, and the exclusivity that big banks seek to maintain, would look very much like an article on large-scale peering, to someone who is not expert in both topics. The transit-free club and the "derivatives dealers club" may have other similarities in the future, and it's worth watching how further government regulation develops in this area. It may lead to insight into how government might eventually regulate ISPs seeking to become settlement-free.
I don't see how this can happen with the number of wide open exchanges that exist these days. Take the several Equinix IX exchange points as an example. They aren't controlled by any cartel of participants who dictate who can and who cannot play. Each network sets their own peering policy. As most of the traffic is from content heavy networks to eyeball heavy networks, direct peering between them makes sense. The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good analogy of the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must be moved quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order to keep their customer happy and the originating network wants to get it to that customer as quickly and cheaply as possible. The proliferation of these peering points means that today there is more traffic going directly from content network to eyeball network. To use a different analogy, it is almost like the market is going to a series of farmer's markets rather than supermarkets in the distribution channel. Sure, there are still the "supermarkets" out there, but increasingly they are selling their "store brand" by becoming content hosting networks themselves. I would expect with the current direction of interconnectivity, third party transit traffic would become a decreasing percentage of the aggregate total bandwidth a network moves. Or at least the third party transit traffic becomes smaller amounts of traffic from a larger number of sources with the big sources of traffic connecting to the big sinks of traffic directly and third party transit collecting the crumbs (albeit probably a large amount of crumbs).
Current thread:
- peering, derivatives, and big brother Jeff Wheeler (Dec 12)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Ken (Dec 12)
- RE: peering, derivatives, and big brother George Bonser (Dec 12)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Laurent GUERBY (Dec 13)
- RE: peering, derivatives, and big brother George Bonser (Dec 13)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Dorn Hetzel (Dec 13)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Steve Bertrand (Dec 16)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Laurent GUERBY (Dec 13)
- RE: peering, derivatives, and big brother Ryan Finnesey (Dec 15)
- Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother Jeff Wheeler (Dec 15)
- RE: peering, derivatives, and big brother George Bonser (Dec 15)