nanog mailing list archives
Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement
From: Karl Denninger <karl () mcs net>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 10:55:43 -0500
On Mon, Aug 24, 1998 at 10:13:43PM -0500, Tracy J. Snell wrote:
(This message assumes Exodus will lose their peering arangement with BBN and I'll either not have routes to Exodus through BBN or they will be worse than they were before) My problem is we purchase transit from BBN. Why should I renew my contract with BBN when I can get better connectivity from someone else? If I stay with BBN how do explain why I did when their connectivity has been degraded? They'll start leaving me for providers with better connectivity.
That has been exactly my point. You bought that transit expecting BBN to get you to the entire IP-connected world where contiguous connectivity is *possible*. Now BBN is saying "well, all except this one place, because we don't like the cost of carrying the traffic you requested (but which you had assumed you already paid them to carry)". This is why anything other than open, unrestricted peering is bogus. People say "well, you will just show up in one place and dump everything there, effectively charging everyone else for your costs". That's bogus as well, and here's why: 1. You can't control quality on someone ELSE's infrastructure. This drives you to install your own circuits to multiple points across the country, because the longer you hold onto the packets the better your ability to insure quality. 2. By installing circuits you gain access to additional markets (cities). This is a real, honest-to-God tangible benefit which offsets the cost. It also allows entirely-on-net services to be sold which again, goes back to point (1) (QOS). Bottom line: If you buy a transit connection, you're expecting TRANSIT. If a backbone provider DELIBERATELY interferes with that transit by cutting off people who refuse to pay for something they've already been compensated for, and for a flow which their customers REQUESTED, the proper step for their customers to take, IMHO, is to drop their contract into the nearest paper shredder and send back the chips. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl () MCS Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Current thread:
- Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John R. Levine (Aug 25)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Tracy J. Snell (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Karl Denninger (Aug 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Owen DeLong (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Message not available
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Brandon Ross (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Tracy J. Snell (Aug 26)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Mike Leber (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement John Curran (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Patrick Greenwell (Aug 24)
- Re: Generation of traffic in "settled" peering arrangement Paul Vixie (Aug 24)