On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, dgold wrote:
What possible reason would the average small transit buyer have for knowing the details of a carrier's peering arrangements - especially carriers like Sprint and Qwest?
Are you suggesting that small providers care less about who they purchase their Internet connectivity from? Hmm.
Of course I didn't say that. I did say that smaller transit customers have, or should have, a set of criteria where their upstream's peering arrangements are not at the top of the list. Customer support, speed of provisioning, and feature-set all tend to be more important for the smaller transit buyer. Peering congestion may be an issue - however, sizes and locations of peering interconnects are not, unless you have enough traffic to potentially overwhelm one. [snip]
Steve
That is an actual performance metric, and could tend to seperate some providers from others, and reward those who keep their peering connections properly sized. Perhaps this is what you mean by "better" peering? Locations and sizes won't help you at all, if this is what you are looking for.
I suppose the question is, what is your goal? If you are looking for transit, there are numerous criteria -
- price - customer service - clueful engineer accessability - network stability - network "reach" - i.e. do they have a POP where you want to interconnect? - Packetloss and latency metrics - Special features - rich community set, multicast, etc
- Dan
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Well Sprints non-peering policy is second to none if that helps with C&W a close second..... :)
Steve
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Christopher K. Neitzert wrote:
List,
Neither Sprint nor Qwest are serious about earning my business and are not providing me with their network peering details. I was hoping that the list might have the collective resources to help me determine who has better peering.
thanks
chirstopher