nanog mailing list archives
Re: Sprint peering policy
From: Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:26:01 -0400
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 05:56:35PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
This assumes as per a previous point that they exchange routes outside the region.
I'll give you this, as I said I was playing devils advocate. I fully agree with the concept of regionalized exchanging for small players. Also, you can now buy transit cheaper than you can buy longhaul circuits even at perfect utilization. Set local-preference subtract. :) I prefer this to hauling traffic from the east to west to east coast just to use a peer because you only have the one anyhow *coughcogentcough*.
And as per your hot potato assumption even without your peering they will still be dragging your inbound from the point of interconnection nearest the source. And quit pro quo, assuming their big tier 1 peers do the same then it'll be the same on balance anyway (as they will carry the traffic in the opposite direction and losses/gains will cancel)
But the traffic they send to you, they get to dump on your Tier 1 provider a many points all over their network. You'd think that being primarily outbound and in a single location would be a good thing, wouldn't you. :)
Theres single points of failure whether with a peer or a transit if your network is of that size where you dont have redundant interconnects..
There is still a single point of failure between yourself and your network provider, but that is not their problem. The worst kind of failure is the kind where BGP doesn't die.
Hmm okay this is valid, but really.. do they need to spend much time on you? Economy of scale and all that.. they can automate building filters, they dont need to worry about alarming small fry bgp sessions, once set up theres nothing much to do.
You're talking about Tier 1's here... How many engineers does it take to plug in a line card? <answer left as an excercise for the reader> But yes, when you put it all together at the end of the day, it's about trying to make money and prevent competition. Some networks simply see those goals down a different path. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Current thread:
- Re: Sprint peering policy, (continued)
- Re: Sprint peering policy E.B. Dreger (Jun 27)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Vijay Gill (Jun 28)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Mike Leber (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Vijay Gill (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Pat Myrto (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy william (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy E.B. Dreger (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Scott Weeks (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Paul Vixie (Jun 29)
- Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy Gordon Cook (Jun 29)
- Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy Vadim Antonov (Jun 30)
- Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy Stephen J. Wilcox (Jun 30)
- Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint peering policy E.B. Dreger (Jun 30)
- Re: Vixie puts his finger squarely on the key issue Re: Sprint Paul Vixie (Jun 30)
- Re: Sprint peering policy David Luyer (Jun 30)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Mike Leber (Jun 29)
- Re: Sprint peering policy Joseph T. Klein (Jun 29)