RE: ratios

[<william () elan net>]

I imagine "public relations" depts of CW and UUNET will not allow them to 
just admit they would not peer, and this is why they "have" peering policies. 

In reality however, UUNET will peer with anyone who pays them money for 
the peering traffic and they do provide good discounts on this. Add to that 
some ISPs have negotiated such that they get transit as part of their 
uunet peering arrangements. I don't have know about CW currently, have 
not dealt with them for long time, but years ago CWUSA (before buying MCI) 
did peer willingly and MCI never did really. One interesting note is that 
UUNET does peer with CW itself in number of new locations, for example big 
peering point for both of them is Equinix in San Jose. Since I can't 
imagine those companies going there just to peer with each other, they 
must have number of other peers their as well... Equanix people - do you 
want to comment on this?

As for buying from companies that are more open to peering, I think this 
should come into play only if everything else is equal and more important 
maybe their network and their willingness to work with customer on BGP and 
setup custom filters, communities, etc.

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Scott Granados wrote:

> I actually think this is put very well.  I know that in my case I'd 
> prefer to buy transit from a company who has an open peering policy.  
> For example, I'd certainly consider buying transit from mfn before uunet 
> for example.  I realize there are many other factors including 
> relyability, cost, company stability etc. but one consideration ior me 
> is their willingness to peer and grow their networks.  I wouuld think 
> especially on this list our arguments should stick to being as strictly 
> technical as possible and not venture in to the personal.  Easier said 
> than done I realize.  However, strong arguments for using networks with 
> open peering policies are more meaningful than ridiculing large carriers 
> who don't wish to peer.
>
> The only thing I can say is I wish they would just publically 
> acknowledge that fact.  If uunet and cw don't wish to peer they should 
> just not have a peering policy.
>
> On Thu, 9 May 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> > 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: ratios
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Plus, 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