Peter writes:
I do still think UUnet is in a downward spiral, just like C&W. Strong peering policies are not good for the Internet.
David replies:
I'm not so sure that's true. Personally, I think the Internet is better served by having a smaller number of larger and better maintained meeting places than by just having a large number of peering points were everyone connects to everybody else.
Here are just a few reasons why, for example, it's better if you use transit to FooNet to reach BarNet rather than BarNet peering with you directly (assuming you are not too big yourself):
1) FooNet and BarNet are more likely to keep their peering points scaled to handle the load than you are. They are more likely to monitor performance and shut down failures.
2) FooNet and BarNet will meet at more places than you will meet BarNet, allowing traffic to get off the source network faster and providing better fault tolerance.
3) Fewer BGP sessions means faster convergence and less instability.
4) You may be more likely to meet BarNet at public peering points while FooNet is more likely to meet BarNet at private peering points. Your traffic to BarNet will get the benefit of the higher amounts of effort FooNet and BarNet will put into keeping their meeting points efficient.
DS
First, I'm not sure how these reasons relate to UUNET's direction (downward spiral, up and to the right, quick-quick-slow). Second, many of them are based on presumptions that relate to past performance, with no guarantee of future results. This is especially true if you consider traffic exchange to occupy more than two points on the spectrum than just Free---Paid Transit. For example, 1) has historically been true when BarNet is not paid for taking your traffic; it may value it for other reasons (content/eyeballs), but unless it is paid it is hard to get resources for link or equipment upgrades. In paid peering, it is paid to take your traffic and is likely to take seriously performance degradation or failure; whether you do is, of course up to you. So it may make more sense to enter a paid peering agreement with BarNet than to use transit through FooNet to get to them. Similarly, 3) has the interesting assumption that you are not using BGP to talk to FooNet, which will not be the case if you have a multi-homed transit arrangement aside from the peering to BarNet. 4) and 2) contain some interesting assumptions about meeting points and the topological relationships among FooNet, BarNet and the customer network. 4) seems to assume, for example, that more of BarNet's effort goes into a private connect to FooNet than to the public connect at BazNAP. Could be true; could be entirely the other way around. As David's post points out, though, there is no easy assumption about what is going to be best. I think the Internet is actually best served by having lots of available of choices for how to interconnect. That way, when your mileage varies, there is something you can do about it. regards, Ted Hardie Disclaimer: I am not speaking for my employer. This disclaimer is, however, included solely for the amusement of Stephen Stuart; any other use may be a violation of his rights to amusement. (http://www.irbs.com/internet/nanog/0104/0164.html)