nanog mailing list archives
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
From: "Gary Hale" <ghale () globalinternetworking com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:17:43 -0400
Daniel, That is way too cynical ... and does not address the question of whether building your own transport ever runs counter to the Internet as a consortium. There are business justifications that underpin peering relationships ... and they are based on understanding (or ... "philosophy") .... Gary -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding () burtongroup com] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:36 AM To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, "Gary Hale" <ghale () globalinternetworking com> wrote:
The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of
small
vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination.
Peering
is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content
globally
... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium. Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone build an autonomous, facilities-based, global "Internet" network that
competes
for narrowband/broadband "pullers" of data and hosting/data
centers/etc.
for content providers ("pulled-fromers" or "pushers" of data)? Gary -----Original Message----- From: Michel Py [mailto:michel () arneill-py sacramento ca us] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM To: Gordon Cook; nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transitPeering? Who needs peering if transit can be had for $20 per megabit per second?The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit. Michel.
Gary, "Peering is an enabler" "gives all an opportunity to share content globally" "fundamental to the Internet consortium" This is like the "greatest hits" compendium collected from various failed 1990's service provider business plans :) People should be careful. Peering is a business/networking arrangement that can save them money (or not). Those who try to imbue it with philosophical significance must be viewed with skepticism. Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
Current thread:
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST), (continued)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Niels Bakker (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Blaine Christian (Apr 22)
- RE: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Apr 22)
- Re: IP economics morphed into (TCP/RST) E.B. Dreger (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Alexei Roudnev (Apr 21)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Apr 20)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Daniel Golding (Apr 20)
- RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit alex (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Deepak Jain (Apr 22)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Deepak Jain (Apr 23)
- Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Richard Irving (Apr 23)