RE: Sprint peering policy

["Phil Rosenthal" <pr () isprime com>]

I switch traffic measured in gbits, and everything is kept on private
peering at the moment (although that is likely to change in the
not-too-distant future).
I doubt I will push more than 200 on the public exchange I am thinking
of joining...  Many public exchanges either feature few large carriers,
or large carriers that would not be interested in peering with you,
unless you are a Fortune 500.
--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of
Stephen J. Wilcox
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:48 PM
To: Deepak Jain
Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg; nanog () merit edu
Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy




I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
"dropping OC48 to IXs".

Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be
switching many gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going?
Not on the IX graphs anyway....

Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed
to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but
just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks
on this list but theres a lot more small ones..

Steve



On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:

> WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, 
> etc) to deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they 
> notify their peers of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions

> disappear. A large ISPs fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe 
> Six Pack ISP.
>
> Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a 
> significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large 
> network to waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 
> 2mb/s of bandwidth nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A 
> few megabits a second is nothing.
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of

> Miquel van Smoorenburg
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM
> To: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
>
>
>
> In article 
> <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+
> v5DgN/
> l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA () isprime com>,
> Phil Rosenthal <pr () isprime com> wrote:
> > Apples and oranges.  Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a 
> > peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP".  Wcom 
> > would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.

> > They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.

> > Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
>
> Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
>
> - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet)
> - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location
> - they only announce regional routes to Joe
> - they use hot potato routing everywhere
>
> in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all 
> that Joe is after anyway
>
> Mike.