On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:17 PM William Herrin <
bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl
>> <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper.
>>
>> The problem with paid peering is that it creates a conflict of
>> interest which corruptly influences the company's behavior. Two
>> customers are paying you in full for a service but if one elects not
>> to pay you will also deny or degrade the service to the other one who
>> has, in fact, paid you.
>
>
> The phrase "paying you in full" is the stumbling point with your
> claim.
>
> As Baldur noted, "paid peer [...] is not providing the whole
> internet and is cheaper."
Since peering customers can only reach transit customers, it follows
that one of the customers in the equation is a fully-paid transit
customer. That fully paid customer's service is degraded or denied
unless the peering customer also pays. Hence the conflict of interest.
I'm sorry. :(
I'm feeling particularly dense this morning, so I'm going to work through
the two cases very slowly to make sure I understand.
Customer A is full transit paying customer.
In case 1, Customer B is a full transit paying customer also.
Customer A announces their prefixes to ISP; as a transit customer,
ISP promises to announce those prefixes to everyone they have a
BGP relationship with, including customer B. Likewise, ISP provides
a full BGP table, including default if requested, to Customer A, ensuring
Customer A can reach Customer B, and Customer B can reach Customer A.
in case 2, Customer B is a paid peering customer.
Customer A announces their prefixes to ISP; as a transit customer,
the ISP promises to announce those prefixes to everyone they have
a BGP relationship with, including Customer B. Likewise, ISP provides
a full BGP table, including default if requested, to Customer A, ensuring
Customer A can reach Customer B, and Customer B can reach Customer A.
I'm not seeing how Customer B's status as paid peer versus transit
customer changes either the set of prefixes Customer A sees, or the
spread of Customer A's prefixes to the rest of the Internet.
In short--the amount Customer B is paying or not paying, does not
change the view of prefixes that Customer A sees, nor does it change
the propagation scope of Customer A's prefixes. As neither of those
two things change, I'm completely failing to see how Customer A's
service is being degraded or denied based on Customer B's choices.
Can you explain what it is I'm missing here? ^_^;
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Thanks!
Matt