The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
If you assume the above three cases are costs and you add that to the cost of the decreased efficiency of traffic to the target network you can compare it to the probability that you can sell service to the former peer. Depending on the relationship, you can guess the likelyhood.
well, that's a technical consideration, and as such won't matter until we've burned through some of the overcapacity from the dot-bomb era. right now it's possible to do gaming and voip and other isochronous applications via a transit provider who can backhaul your traffic 1500 miles (or 6000 miles) to some centralised peering point and still have reasonable performance. we will need to 1000X the traffic volume again before this stops working again. which should take about a year.
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
Good point about market support.. Well, I think as a local operator you can not expect to be able to peer with everyone to receive global routes but theres no reason not to exchange local routes comparable to the area your own network covers, this wont affect transit sales and wont cost you in backhaul either. Thats a slightly different perspective than assuming you can get a providers to exchange all their network with you in a settlement free bilateral.
If you assume the above three cases are costs and you add that to the cost of the decreased efficiency of traffic to the target network you can compare it to the probability that you can sell service to the former peer. Depending on the relationship, you can guess the likelyhood.
well, that's a technical consideration, and as such won't matter until we've burned through some of the overcapacity from the dot-bomb era. right now it's possible to do gaming and voip and other isochronous applications via a transit provider who can backhaul your traffic 1500 miles (or 6000 miles) to some centralised peering point and still have reasonable performance. we will need to 1000X the traffic volume again before this stops working again.
Unfortunately I tend to agree, on the whole the internet is about web pages and email and that wont suffer from the perspective on the eyeballs.. But, hosters are very conscious about this and will move to the better connected provider, we've seen this on the CW takeover on Exodus, as Exodus closed peers the customers abandoned ship... And definitely to your gamers and possibly your VoIP folks to (depending on details) they will be very fickle on your network connectivity and the quality of local peerings is crucial to these applications, gaming is growing very quickly as more people get flat fee broadband and to a residential access provider I wouldnt underestimate how much it could hurt to increase the path to the servers by a couple of hops. Steve
which should take about a year.
On Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how
I think you just answered your own question. Exchange point operations.
could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
I think its a difficult market to exist in anyway. It may be that networks can make revenue on characteristics of their network other than simply bps. The quality (read: latency, loss factor, transparency/or-not, connectedness) and services (read: various types of servers such as for games, voice/multimedia gateways, storage, flexibility - perhaps deliver service further than the smartjack?) may be what differeniates one from another. This doesn't seem to be happening though and I'm not sure how likely it will be. If the market is soley about the number of bits, soon this might not be an attractive market for a lot of providers to be in. If there are a lot of suppliers and the ease of changing suppliers is simple (good reason for you to want to get rid of NAT :-), the market will be commoditized with consumers simply moving their connections around to Cogent-like providers on a month-to-month basis. This assumes most suppliers provide a reasonable level of quality, which most probably do. If there are only a few suppliers (oligopoly?), little choice and strong barriers to entry, it might be a much more attractive market to be in. As a customer, I'd like to see the former more than the latter. Perhaps then the services above would be more forthcoming? John
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
The perceived "money on the table" frequently doesn't exist and attempts to get it may produce the opposite result.
well, yeah, sure, but...
* Who they shift the traffic to may be your competitor.
...at least you know they are paying SOMEBODY, thus supporting the market you want to be in. you can then compete in that market. if everybody who could peer in N places worldwide could just get peering, then all kinds of per-bit revenue for "high tier" network owners would turn into per-port revenue for exchange point operators. where's the market in that? how could a "high tier" even exist in those conditions?
This is a straw man argument. I could just point out how it's technically wrong except that would be no fun so instead I'll give analogies first: Your argument is like saying that everybody that has taken a wood shop class in high school (or junior high) can build their own house, so home builders are going to be out of business. Or how about... Since everybody that has a truck can drive a package from San Jose to New York, Federal Express and United Parcel Service are no longer needed. Or most mundane yet... Everybody knows how to make sandwitches so there aren't going to be any kind large sandwitch chains, let alone multinational corporations that serve food. Seriously... Networks cost money to build and operate. Geography, both physical and political, provide for varying costs over different routes. The majority of large networks don't have the exact same routers in the exact same places connected with the exact same circuits. Operational costs, capital costs, customer service attitudes, and policies are different between companies. All of these features define the specific value added of a network. Economic pressure and the underlying technology determine how many companies can exist. Even if there were low barriers to entry, it doesn't mean that there won't be cases where it makes perfectly reasonable sense to some networks to outsource part of their infrastructure needs. This might be as simple as coverage for a specific market or backup capacity.
we will need to 1000X the traffic volume again before this stops working again. which should take about a year.
Heh. That should be interesting. :) In the long run capacity is likely to be capable of expanding at the rate of moores law. "Desired" bandwidth per end user appears to increase in a nonlinear manner at the introduction of new protocols (i.e. HTTP, Kazaa). If we have enough of these nonlinear transitions we might even someday be able to make a moores law equivalent for end user bandwidth demand (the chip industry has a few more years on us to be able to make empirical conclusions regarding industry constants). Then you could compare the curve of the end user bandwidth demand law to the moores law curve and make interesting prognostications. To illustrate how moores law and the hypothetical end user bandwidth demand law are different, for anybody that has upgraded their personal workstation to twice the processor speed or greater, to do the exact same end user task (i.e. visit a website) the day after you upgraded did you generate twice as much bandwidth? probably not. Mike. +----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -----------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Been on vacation so sorry for the late response but we're talking fiber here, not ICs. How about this for an analogy: When I upgraded from ISDN to Cable, my Internet habits changed considerably. Large downloads were no longer something to be avoided and that 250Kbps audio/video stream could run in the background 24/7 without interfering with my other traffic. While you may visit the same old web pages after upgrading your computer, upgrading your connectivity typically results in significant changes in traffic patterns. Computers have been capable of broadband connectivity for decades. No need to upgrade to use more bandwidth. :) So let's change your analogy to "the day after you upgraded from dialup to broadband..." Just my 2ยข. Best regards, ______________________________ Al Rowland
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Leber Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:08 PM To: Paul Vixie Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: AOL & Cogent
[SNIP]
To illustrate how moores law and the hypothetical end user bandwidth demand law are different, for anybody that has upgraded their personal workstation to twice the processor speed or greater, to do the exact same end user task (i.e. visit a website) the day after you upgraded did you generate twice as much bandwidth? probably not.
Mike.
+----------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C +-----------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------- ----------+
participants (5)
-
Al Rowland -
John Kristoff -
Mike Leber -
Paul Vixie -
Stephen J. Wilcox