This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about. Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high. So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others. There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email. The key questions... 1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open? I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet. - PR __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Peering Resistance wrote:
1) What are the selected sites?
Doesn't matter.
2) How do the rest of us play?
You don't, unless they invite you.
3) Why wasn't this process more open?
It doesn't need to be. If it is collusion for a few ISP's to get together in one location and peer then well, anyone at a PAIX, a MAE, a Telehouse, or any number of other locations is guilty of colluding with other people at the same location. There is a long tradition of ISP's meeting somewhere in the middle, it's just often been hidden in telco circuits (each side buys a half circuit to some telco meeting point in the middle). Now they are putting routers in the middle meeting point, what changed, nothing. If anything this is good for the small ISP, because before you had to be a telco and be able to deliver half circuits to a telco meeting point to get good peering. Now there is some hope that requirement would be minimized in the future. Next thing you know the fact that Ford and GM both make cars that run on Unleaded Gas and force you to buy from these central distrubution points run by Exxon/Mobil will be because they are colluding against the people making {natural gas,electric,fuel cell} cars. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Anything the Telco's do is not good for the smaller ISP. Nothing any of the RBOC's have done have been good for the small ISP. In fact, most of them are trying to stomp out the small ISP. Curits On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Peering Resistance wrote:
1) What are the selected sites?
Doesn't matter.
2) How do the rest of us play?
You don't, unless they invite you.
3) Why wasn't this process more open?
It doesn't need to be.
If it is collusion for a few ISP's to get together in one location and peer then well, anyone at a PAIX, a MAE, a Telehouse, or any number of other locations is guilty of colluding with other people at the same location. There is a long tradition of ISP's meeting somewhere in the middle, it's just often been hidden in telco circuits (each side buys a half circuit to some telco meeting point in the middle). Now they are putting routers in the middle meeting point, what changed, nothing.
If anything this is good for the small ISP, because before you had to be a telco and be able to deliver half circuits to a telco meeting point to get good peering. Now there is some hope that requirement would be minimized in the future.
Next thing you know the fact that Ford and GM both make cars that run on Unleaded Gas and force you to buy from these central distrubution points run by Exxon/Mobil will be because they are colluding against the people making {natural gas,electric,fuel cell} cars.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Maurand System Administrator lamere.net Powered by Prexar http://www.lamere.net mailto:curtis@lamere.net Linux, OS/2, Windows (any flavor) http://www.prexar.com Cisco, OpenRoute, Lucent MySQL, SQL Server, PHP, Perl ------------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing sinister or secret about this. I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do. What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too. These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good. "What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely. - Jeb Linton (My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I know.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peering Resistance Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The large ISPs and Peering
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.
So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others.
There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.
The key questions...
1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open?
I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet.
- PR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Let's break this one down. The large ISPs have finally started to work together, to potentially exclude smaller providers. That isn't good. Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are not. This has a major business impact on the ones who aren't choosen. Why is any of this bad? Because when X providers who control a large part of the market start to work together, you get a Cartel. This type of joint decision-making is always bad for the smaller player in the field, as the self-interest of the larger players is to preserve their own market share. Cartels are bad for business, as they make the industry less competitive. Thats bad for everyone. As for your remarks about these providers and their "huge" routers, and the bigness of these colos... What does that have to do with this issue? The vast majority of space would be taken up with DWDM or SONET gear in any case. A "one-stop shop" looks good to the consumer, at least at first. What happens when the prices start to synchronize? This type of approach takes a great deal of flexibility out of the IP transit sales process. The big will get bigger, and the consumer will eventually suffer. Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so it would seem to be in your shareholder's best interest to keep competition high, and thus keep prices low. - Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jeb R. Linton Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:02 AM To: 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
There's nothing sinister or secret about this.
I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.
What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too.
These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.
"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely.
- Jeb Linton
(My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I know.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peering Resistance Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The large ISPs and Peering
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.
So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others.
There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.
The key questions...
1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open?
I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet.
- PR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
You're certainly right about the optical gear, but it misses the point that the Tier-1s will come nowhere near filling these facilities. Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that, rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so. I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few reasons. 1. There's a fiber glut. 2. Several of the Tier-1s in the consortium are relatively new players who are still paying for their share of the fiber glut, in a market downturn. 3. Because of 1 & 2, transit prices have already plummetted this year. The best price we can get now is less than 50% what it was eight months ago. 4. Tier-2s and Content Providers have already started peering aggressively to avoid paying the Tier-1s for transit. This is likely to happen even more aggressively if we have a smaller and better known set of places to meet and peer. This is even more compelling to the larger, older, more expensive Tier-1s. If I'm in a building where three providers can give me transit at $100/Mb and four have it at $200-300/Mb, the choice is easy. Equalization may happen here, but it will be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the reasons above. In the end, Tier-1s need more transit business, and Tier-2s/Content Providers need less transit (i.e. the growth rate is decreasing). More supply, less demand. Prices will decrease. - Jeb
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dan@netrail.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:38 PM To: jeblinton@corp.earthlink.net; 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
Let's break this one down.
The large ISPs have finally started to work together, to potentially exclude smaller providers. That isn't good.
Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are not. This has a major business impact on the ones who aren't choosen.
Why is any of this bad? Because when X providers who control a large part of the market start to work together, you get a Cartel. This type of joint decision-making is always bad for the smaller player in the field, as the self-interest of the larger players is to preserve their own market share.
Cartels are bad for business, as they make the industry less competitive. Thats bad for everyone.
As for your remarks about these providers and their "huge" routers, and the bigness of these colos... What does that have to do with this issue? The vast majority of space would be taken up with DWDM or SONET gear in any case.
A "one-stop shop" looks good to the consumer, at least at first. What happens when the prices start to synchronize? This type of approach takes a great deal of flexibility out of the IP transit sales process. The big will get bigger, and the consumer will eventually suffer.
Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so it would seem to be in your shareholder's best interest to keep competition high, and thus keep prices low.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jeb R. Linton Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:02 AM To: 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
There's nothing sinister or secret about this.
I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.
What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too.
These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.
"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely.
- Jeb Linton
(My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I know.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peering Resistance Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The large ISPs and Peering
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.
So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others.
There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.
The key questions...
1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open?
I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet.
- PR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
From what I understand, the space requirements were 1,000 sq ft. Obviously this would not fill any of the colos they decided to go into. Where the colos were not "super-sized" they were asking about cross connect models where even if the next tier1 went into a different colo, there was a cross connect available at the same pricing as if they were in the room. So it seems they were making it part of the duties of the colo landlords to provide an infrastructure where by no future tier1s would have a cost disadvantage. What I read into this was that non of the existing tier1s wanted any future company to scream "consortium" or any other dirty words, and say they were placed at a competitive disadvantage because the existing colo was full. As you can read from Jeb's email, if the tier1s are too tight on peering policy, it only encourages the tier2s and content people to work around them, meaning a reduction of traffic ie. revenue for the tier1s. Dave At 1:07 PM -0400 7/25/01, Jeb R. Linton wrote:
You're certainly right about the optical gear, but it misses the point that the Tier-1s will come nowhere near filling these facilities.
Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that, rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so.
I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few reasons.
1. There's a fiber glut. 2. Several of the Tier-1s in the consortium are relatively new players who are still paying for their share of the fiber glut, in a market downturn. 3. Because of 1 & 2, transit prices have already plummetted this year. The best price we can get now is less than 50% what it was eight months ago. 4. Tier-2s and Content Providers have already started peering aggressively to avoid paying the Tier-1s for transit. This is likely to happen even more aggressively if we have a smaller and better known set of places to meet and peer.
This is even more compelling to the larger, older, more expensive Tier-1s. If I'm in a building where three providers can give me transit at $100/Mb and four have it at $200-300/Mb, the choice is easy. Equalization may happen here, but it will be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the reasons above.
In the end, Tier-1s need more transit business, and Tier-2s/Content Providers need less transit (i.e. the growth rate is decreasing). More supply, less demand. Prices will decrease.
- Jeb
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dan@netrail.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:38 PM To: jeblinton@corp.earthlink.net; 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
Let's break this one down.
The large ISPs have finally started to work together, to potentially exclude smaller providers. That isn't good.
Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are not. This has a major business impact on the ones who aren't choosen.
Why is any of this bad? Because when X providers who control a large part of the market start to work together, you get a Cartel. This type of joint decision-making is always bad for the smaller player in the field, as the self-interest of the larger players is to preserve their own market share.
Cartels are bad for business, as they make the industry less competitive. Thats bad for everyone.
As for your remarks about these providers and their "huge" routers, and the bigness of these colos... What does that have to do with this issue? The vast majority of space would be taken up with DWDM or SONET gear in any case.
A "one-stop shop" looks good to the consumer, at least at first. What happens when the prices start to synchronize? This type of approach takes a great deal of flexibility out of the IP transit sales process. The big will get bigger, and the consumer will eventually suffer.
Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so it would seem to be in your shareholder's best interest to keep competition high, and thus keep prices low.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jeb R. Linton Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:02 AM To: 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
There's nothing sinister or secret about this.
I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.
What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too.
These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.
"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely.
- Jeb Linton
(My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I know.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peering Resistance Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The large ISPs and Peering
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.
So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others.
There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.
The key questions...
1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open?
I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet.
- PR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Jeb R. Linton wrote:
Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that, rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so.
A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity, telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?
I don't see this as a bad thing. What you say about price equalization followed by increases may be true, but it seems unlikely to me for a few reasons.
1. There's a fiber 6glut.
There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude on network build out and stop competing with each other. If you think that's not true, think again.
2. Several of the Tier-1s in the consortium are relatively new players who are still paying for their share of the fiber glut, in a market downturn.
3. Because of 1 & 2, transit prices have already plummetted this year. The best price we can get now is less than 50% what it was eight months ago.
Competition is great. If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides in bringing loop and bandwidth charges down to a more reasonable level. Competition brought us the glut and lower prices. A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices.
4. Tier-2s and Content Providers have already started peering aggressively to avoid paying the Tier-1s for transit. This is likely to happen even more aggressively if we have a smaller and better known set of places to meet and peer.
See my answer to point 1.
This is even more compelling to the larger, older, more expensive Tier-1s. If I'm in a building where three providers can give me transit at $100/Mb and four have it at $200-300/Mb, the choice is easy. Equalization may happen here, but it will be a good thing, not a bad thing, for the reasons
above.
Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down? Then the question is, which provider you go with. Hopefully the one that beats everyone else up on customer service since that will be the only thing that sets you apart from the other cartel members. But since none of the providers have really good customer service, then you all begin to look the same and we little guys start looking for alternatives.
In the end, Tier-1s need more transit business, and Tier-2s/Content Providers need less transit (i.e. the growth rate is decreasing). More supply, less demand. Prices will decrease.
The consortium will control supply at a lower level. Prices will increase. Curtis
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dan@netrail.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 12:38 PM To: jeblinton@corp.earthlink.net; 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
Let's break this one down.
The large ISPs have finally started to work together, to potentially exclude smaller providers. That isn't good.
Certain colo facilities are being choosen. Others are not. This has a major business impact on the ones who aren't choosen.
Why is any of this bad? Because when X providers who control a large part of the market start to work together, you get a Cartel. This type of joint decision-making is always bad for the smaller player in the field, as the self-interest of the larger players is to preserve their own market share.
Cartels are bad for business, as they make the industry less competitive. Thats bad for everyone.
As for your remarks about these providers and their "huge" routers, and the bigness of these colos... What does that have to do with this issue? The vast majority of space would be taken up with DWDM or SONET gear in any case.
A "one-stop shop" looks good to the consumer, at least at first. What happens when the prices start to synchronize? This type of approach takes a great deal of flexibility out of the IP transit sales process. The big will get bigger, and the consumer will eventually suffer.
Earthlink is a huge consumer of transit bandwidth, so it would seem to be in your shareholder's best interest to keep competition high, and thus keep prices low.
- Daniel Golding
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Jeb R. Linton Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:02 AM To: 'Peering Resistance'; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: The large ISPs and Peering
There's nothing sinister or secret about this.
I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.
What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too.
These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.
"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely.
- Jeb Linton
(My opinions only, not the opinions of EarthLink or anyone else as far as I know.)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Peering Resistance Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: The large ISPs and Peering
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
Aproximately 8 months ago, several of the very largest ISPs, ones with names like WorldCom, Sprint, CW, Genuity, and others, came together to discuss the concept of peering. The all peered with each other, most with very large peering circuits - OC-12 or above. The problem was that the provisioning time and effort required for these circuits was getting quite out of control. Costs of interconnects were also high.
So, these large providers did the "unthinkable". They decided to issue an RFP to 8 sites around the US, which they would jointly inhabit for purposes of peering. In order to avoid the appearence of collusion, they all issued similar RFPs, each originating from their own company, but otherwise almost identical. And the sites were choosen using essentially identical criteria. So, unsurprisingly, the same 8 sites were choosen, in such cities as Dallas, Chicago, San Francisco, New York, DC, and others.
There are several rumors floating about as to which sites were choosen. This is unconfirmed and conjecture, so I won't go into it for this email.
The key questions...
1) What are the selected sites? 2) How do the rest of us play? 3) Why wasn't this process more open?
I know that this is a true situation, as I have confirmation from three different sources, and have seen copies of several of the RFCs. I eagerly await the comments of those providers involved with this effort, and hope that this will lead to a more open internet.
- PR
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Maurand System Administrator lamere.net Powered by Prexar http://www.lamere.net mailto:curtis@lamere.net Linux, OS/2, Windows (any flavor) http://www.prexar.com Cisco, OpenRoute, Lucent MySQL, SQL Server, PHP, Perl ------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 11:21:54AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. [...] However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because the process for choosing them was closed.
This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on NANOG! "How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?"
Does it make sense for all of my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?
There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level of service that you require you should vote with your wallet and select another provider.
There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...] If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides [...] A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices. The consortium will control supply at a lower level. Prices will increase. Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down? If you think that's not true, think again.
Proof by repeated assertion, eh? I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large providers?" --Jeff
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Jeff Aitken wrote:
This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that uninvolved parties should be able to dictate where and how large "promising local ISPs" should interconnect? Maybe we should have a vote on NANOG!
"How does this choice of interconnection point make you feel?"
Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want nothing more.
There's nothing preventing your provider from establishing additional regional peering where appropriate; if they fail to provide the level of service that you require you should vote with your wallet and select another provider.
A point well taken.
There won't be if the Tier-1's all form a "consotium." They will collude on network build out and stop competing [...] If the "consortium" is formmed it will wipe out all those strides [...] A consortium will wipe out the glut and raise prices. The consortium will control supply at a lower level. Prices will increase. Yes, but the equalization will happen at the higher price. There's nobody to compete with, so why keep the price down? If you think that's not true, think again.
Proof by repeated assertion, eh?
We can look at Opec for starters. The Steel price fixings from the "consotium" of american steel companies during the 50's and 60's. What makes you think telecomm is any different than any other business? There have been numerous hand slappings around price fixing by "consortiums" throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.
I'm really confused here. How did we go from "certain large ISPs are working together to reduce the cost of interconnection amongst themselves" to "there will be no competition between these large providers?"
My paranoia about large companies getting too close together. :-) Curtis -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Maurand System Administrator lamere.net Powered by Prexar http://www.lamere.net mailto:curtis@lamere.net Linux, OS/2, Windows (any flavor) http://www.prexar.com Cisco, OpenRoute, Lucent MySQL, SQL Server, PHP, Perl ------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote:
We can look at Opec for starters. The Steel price fixings from the "consotium" of american steel companies during the 50's and 60's. What makes you think telecomm is any different than any other business? There have been numerous hand slappings around price fixing by "consortiums" throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's.
Companies don't have to join OPEC to sell oil. Companies don't have to join a Steel consortium to make or sell Steel. If UUNet and Sprint didn't peer the Internet would no longer function in the way we expect. There is a fundamental business here in that ISP's are _required_ to do business with each other in order to make the Internet work as users expect. ISP's will always have business ties to each other, in the form of paid/free transit/peering. Making that go away makes it all cease to work, completely. So, let's try again. These people already do business with each other, and are forced to by the technology, and customer expectations. They are trying to reduce their costs. What's the problem? If down the road a _qualified_ peer is rejected from these spots because "we don't like you" then you might have a case. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Leo Bicknell wrote:
There is a fundamental business here in that ISP's are _required_ to do business with each other in order to make the Internet work as users expect. ISP's will always have business ties to each other, in the form of paid/free transit/peering. Making that go away makes it all cease to work, completely.
I have to point out an interesting similarity between Big Oil and Big Telecomm. The Oil and ISP industries are the only two major industries I know of where your biggest competitors are quite often also your biggest customers. In the oil industry, you see it all the time with the company-owned retail stores versus the dealers - but who do the dealers buy from? Right. It makes for some rather interesting business relationships, IMHO. -- JustThe.net LLC - Steve "Web Dude" Sobol, CTO - sjsobol@JustThe.net Donate a portion of your monthly ISP bill to your favorite charity or non-profit organization! E-mail me for details.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote: [..]
Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want nothing more. [..]
Would you like fries with that? -- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote: [..]
Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want nothing more. [..]
Would you like fries with that?
Absolutely. All I want is to be heard. That's influence even if its only a comment to someone at the table. A representative process. I would hope that customer needs are taken into account. Curtis -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Curtis Maurand System Administrator lamere.net Powered by Prexar http://www.lamere.net mailto:curtis@lamere.net Linux, OS/2, Windows (any flavor) http://www.prexar.com Cisco, OpenRoute, Lucent MySQL, SQL Server, PHP, Perl ------------------------------------------------------------
Yes please, and super size my cross connects... I do not understand all the hubbub about the locations. It would seem to me people would be more concerned about peering policy. Isnt an open location where anyone can show up better than private peering circuits no one knows anything about. Then the only argument against peering is policy not, "ummmm we dont do private peering circuits" or "oh that would take 1yr to provision. " You show up, hand a cross connect to their router, see they have an open port... then just argue about their peering policy. That's about as good as it's ever going to get. It they wont peer you can work out a transit arrangement which might be almost as good at that location. Apparently Chris can supersize your optical connections with his fancy new gear. Oh the fly upgrades from OC3 --> OC12 right Chris? :-) dd
On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:38:53AM -0400, Curtis Maurand wrote: [..]
Thanks, but the choice of interconnection point affects us all whether we are big telco's or not. I would not want to dictate where and how, but having a little influence in where and how would be OK. I would want nothing more. [..]
Would you like fries with that?
-- Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S. "I speak for myself only.""
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:21:54 -0400 (EDT) Curtis Maurand wrote:
Non-Tier-1 players are by no means being excluded from getting into these facilities - exactly the opposite. The facility vendors are pushing to get them in. The only thing were weren't included in is the choice of facilities; if the Tier-1s want to form a consortium (they call it that, rather than a "cartel"), it's certainly within their rights to do so.
A rose by any other name... The fact is, and history shows us, that when cartels form, things get bad for the consumer. Oil, Electricity, telecomm. However, The placement of the NAP's is disconcerting, because the process for choosing them was closed. Does it make sense for all of my traffic going to maine.rr.com from lamere.net (both in Maine and in the same communities) to exchange traffic at MAE east 650 miles away?
Curtis, As an aside, there actually is a peering point in Portland, ME, USA located in One City Center. I heard a rumor you folk were planning to join. I hope you do. Honestly, I think the reason your traffic takes the above route is internal resistance inside your own company.... good luck, fletcher
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:01:57AM -0400, Jeb R. Linton wrote:
There's nothing sinister or secret about this.
Except for the obvious troll by the anonymous poster. If our anonymous poster has the claimed RFPs, why haven't they been posted? Why are they posting anonymously?
I can't say who the winners are because the winners aren't official yet, and I also have heard only rumors. The big players are simply doing a smart thing - deciding together on points where they can all agree to meet and peer at 2.4Gb and 10Gb cheaply. It's obviously the right thing to do.
I hate to point this out, but the `big players' are invariably associated with large LECs, IXCs and other companies in possession of A) large amounts of fiber and/or b) large amounts of transport. They are also typically in posession of large amounts of colo, usually their own, which they are already deployed into. Would you rather deploy into your own colo, or someone elses, particularly when that someone is in competition with you? Do you want to be in a facility your competitors have access to?
What it means for smaller ISPs, content providers, etc., is that there will now be a particular Equinix, Level(3), etc. facility, where we know all the big players will be. Those facility providers won't keep us out - they'll market the fact that the top Tier-1's are there in order to get everyone else there too.
I think you vastly overestimate the ability of multiple providers to cooperate on this scale. The regulatory and goodwill cost of such cooperation, even if possible, exceeds the LEC/IXC/fiber subsidized peering loops.
These facilities are huge. Each Tier-1 needs space for a few Juniper M160s, Cisco 12400s, etc. The space left is more than enough for Tier-2s and content providers galore. There's nothing preventing the big guys from competing to provide transit to others in those facilities without huge local loop costs. It's basically a one-stop shop for transit circuits from anybody you want - they know this, so the competition will be pretty good.
*bzzt* Wrong again. In order for a large carrier, particularly large access and transit ISPs to deploy into these facilities, they will require transport equipment. ADMs and diverse fiber entrances into those facilities are not cheap. They would have to fully deploy into each of these facilities. The total equipment, fiber, and facilities cost of such a move is likely to be much higher than arranging for private peering as needed.
"What happens to my favorite Co-lo?"... Well, if you're not in the facility that gets chosen, it's still likely there will be cheap connections from yours to theirs. These thing will sit on multiple metro fiber rings, so again there will be decent competition. Any old facility that doesn't hook up to the chosen ones knows they will be left out in the dark. So choose wisely.
It comes down to the savings. From a tier 2 or tier 3 perspective, transport, particularly large pipes, seems prohibitively expensive. When you receive these loops at or below cost due to Ma Telco's subsidization of those loops, it is very possibly a non-issue to arrange for 'large' circuits, peering or otherwise, as long as the capacity is there. I think your perspective may be skewing your judgement somewhat. In my experience, presence at the same facility is only a peering enhancer for local and regional ISPs, who would very possibly not peer at all if there were a loop involved. The larger carriers have already made their arrangements. --msa
Ok, my turn to weigh in on this. :) First, can we stipulate that the "big players" have to peer somewhere? As I see it, there are two extremes: 1) a mesh of point-to-point circuits between sites, (SONET, dark fiber, metro-gigE, etc.) 2) common colocation with local private links between routers On the whole, option 2 seems easier to manage and potentially less expensive. Here's why: - There can be problems getting circuits between carriers. I once heard from an engineer at one carrier-owned ISP that a private peering circuit to another carrier-owned ISP had been on order for over a year, because each carriers refused to allow the other to carry the traffic on its fiber. - It should cost less to bring a few large circuits into a central facility and use the colocated router to multiplex the cheap local peering circuits, than to provision a bunch of smaller metro circuits. - It's much quicker to run fiber across a room than get a circuit from any Telco. This makes additions and changes much easier. Sure, a carrier-owned ISP likely can get ciruits into the colo more easily, but it's not that expensive any more for others to get in. There are a bunch of new companies building carrier infrastructure and trying to sell cheap metro high-speed circuits into popular buildings (I worked for one until recently), and dark fiber is often available for even less. As for the political question of peering policies, I won't get into that except to say that it seems an orthogonal issue to me. Just my $.02, Steve
Steve, To summarize why folks want to do this: Most of the really big ISPs peer at the OC12 or OC48 level with each other. The provisioning interval on these large circuits is insane. There is typically little or no cost - it's not really about expense, as the Big ISPs are also big carriers, and the do meet in certain places, circuit-wise. The problem is that the carrier arms of these companies move slowly, especially for such large ciruits. They may also through up political roadblocks. And, in those occasional cases where a large ISP needs to get a circuit to reach another carrier, that OC-48 really hurts financially. These ISPs want to meet in facilities that have room and power for all their transport gear and routers. They want stuff like multiple entrance facilities, high security, and other features. They want to be able to just run x-connections to each other when they need a new circuit. Of course, it's not quite so simple, because if someone is running an OC-48 x-connect between two really big providers theirs lots of other work to do, but its still a real time-saver. I don't think anyone disputes the utility or engineering good-sense of this proposal - I certainly do not. However, there seems to be an assumption amongst some posters, that just because something makes good sense from an engineering point of view, then it's a good thing. This could be a great thing for the evolution of the Internet. It could even help the small ISP, by saving significantly on peering costs, by identifying certain sites as private interconnection sites. On the other hand, it could lead to higher pricing, a willingness by the larger providers to work more closely together, and a more exclusionary attitude towards peering. These would be bad. There's also an engineering problem with this approach. When folk prodominantly peered at the public exchanges, they were point-of-failure, and a MAE going down could be felt rather acutely across many networks. By peering in the same facilities, there many be greater risk exposure for the Internet as a whole. Sure, there's less risk of individual circuits going down, but greater risk of longer impairment to routing due to fire, loss of electrical power, or flooding in one of these sites. It's the risk of centralization vs distribution. Just thought this was worth pointing out. (And no, none of these connections will go through a central switch, it's private peering. That does reduce the risk, which is why I do not mention equipment failure as a possible risk) - Dan
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Steve Feldman Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:29 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: The large ISPs and Peering
Ok, my turn to weigh in on this. :)
First, can we stipulate that the "big players" have to peer somewhere?
As I see it, there are two extremes:
1) a mesh of point-to-point circuits between sites, (SONET, dark fiber, metro-gigE, etc.)
2) common colocation with local private links between routers
On the whole, option 2 seems easier to manage and potentially less expensive. Here's why:
- There can be problems getting circuits between carriers. I once heard from an engineer at one carrier-owned ISP that a private peering circuit to another carrier-owned ISP had been on order for over a year, because each carriers refused to allow the other to carry the traffic on its fiber.
- It should cost less to bring a few large circuits into a central facility and use the colocated router to multiplex the cheap local peering circuits, than to provision a bunch of smaller metro circuits.
- It's much quicker to run fiber across a room than get a circuit from any Telco. This makes additions and changes much easier.
Sure, a carrier-owned ISP likely can get ciruits into the colo more easily, but it's not that expensive any more for others to get in. There are a bunch of new companies building carrier infrastructure and trying to sell cheap metro high-speed circuits into popular buildings (I worked for one until recently), and dark fiber is often available for even less.
As for the political question of peering policies, I won't get into that except to say that it seems an orthogonal issue to me.
Just my $.02, Steve
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.
associated with large LECs, IXCs and other companies in possession of A) large amounts of fiber and/or b) large amounts of transport.
They are also typically in posession of large amounts of colo, usually their own, which they are already deployed into. Would you rather deploy into your own colo, or someone elses, particularly when that someone is in competition with you? Do you want to be in a facility your competitors have access to?
Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping equipment into competitors colos to provide service.
*bzzt* Wrong again. In order for a large carrier, particularly large access and transit ISPs to deploy into these facilities, they will require transport equipment. ADMs and diverse fiber entrances into those facilities are not cheap. They would have to fully deploy into each of these facilities.
Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book. So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.
The total equipment, fiber, and facilities cost of such a move is likely to be much higher than arranging for private peering as needed.
Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new circuits.
you receive these loops at or below cost due to Ma Telco's subsidization of those loops, it is very possibly a non-issue to arrange for 'large' circuits, peering or otherwise, as long as the capacity is there.
Having been there, it is not a cost thing, it is almost completely a lack of speed of provisioning at the local loop thing (aka the viscosity of bandwidth is high).
In my experience, presence at the same facility is only a peering enhancer for local and regional ISPs, who would very possibly not peer at all if there were a loop involved. The larger carriers have already made their arrangements.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Having a Nx192 system in a facility where there were lots of other large players and I could get a new connection turned up by a cross-connect work order would be very useful. /vijay
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:03:48PM -0400, Vijay Gill wrote:
Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.
I was in a hurry when I wrote this, and I probably should have clarified a bit more:
Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping equipment into competitors colos to provide service.
I was mostly responding to the Level(3) in the poster's comment; if something like this were to happen, Equinix and PAIX are definitely the preferred vendors in this situation. I think the distinction should be made between colo in the sense the original poster was using it (AboveNet, Level(3), etc.) -- colocation provided by someone who would typically sell you transit along with your colocation. And colo in the PAIX/Equinix sense, where the vendor most explicitly will *not* sell you transit, because they strive to maintain a carrier-neutral environment. Many small providers are not typically in the latter (although some very definitely are), but certainly exist in the former. It's two different markets, so expecting that you are 'screwed' if your carrier(s) of choice are not there is not really correct -- the carriers will go where the customers are, regardless of where they might choose to meet. I realize I was not clear on this earlier :)
Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book.
Yes, but dark fiber is a perfectly legitimate metro option. The cities mentioned in this thread are by and large major markets where dark fiber is available. You can do this without any joint facility. 5 years ago, it may have made sense. With the increasing availability of fiber in these major markets, I'm not sure that the expenditures are justifiable in the long term (beyond the next two to three years).
So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.
I'm not disagreeing with this, for obvious reasons.
Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new circuits.
Again, not disparaging the incredible usefulness of dark fiber. --msa
Vijay and Steve have pretty much hit it on the head as far as the (apparently not-so-) clear reasons for this effort. Majdi, what you don't seem to be taking into account is that this isn't speculation on something that could or should be done, it's commentary on something that has been done. Regardless my opinion (and apparently most others') that this is an advantageous move for the large providers, actions speak loader than words. *They* judged that this is the financially sensible thing to do, and they acted on this judgement. - Jeb
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Majdi S. Abbas Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:42 PM To: Vijay Gill Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: The large ISPs and Peering
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 11:03:48PM -0400, Vijay Gill wrote:
Majdi, I don't believe I'm going to have to do this.
I was in a hurry when I wrote this, and I probably should have clarified a bit more:
Perhaps this is why neutral (n-th) party colo providers were given the chance to bid on the contract. If the service is going to suck, it will suck for _everyone_. And there are plenty of people who are dropping equipment into competitors colos to provide service.
I was mostly responding to the Level(3) in the poster's comment; if something like this were to happen, Equinix and PAIX are definitely the preferred vendors in this situation.
I think the distinction should be made between colo in the sense the original poster was using it (AboveNet, Level(3), etc.) -- colocation provided by someone who would typically sell you transit along with your colocation. And colo in the PAIX/Equinix sense, where the vendor most explicitly will *not* sell you transit, because they strive to maintain a carrier-neutral environment. Many small providers are not typically in the latter (although some very definitely are), but certainly exist in the former. It's two different markets, so expecting that you are 'screwed' if your carrier(s) of choice are not there is not really correct -- the carriers will go where the customers are, regardless of where they might choose to meet.
I realize I was not clear on this earlier :)
Yes, but the long term traffic growth rate is constrained at the edges for the most part (edge being the local loop). Horror stories regarding speed of provisioning between two large promising local ISP's would fill a book.
Yes, but dark fiber is a perfectly legitimate metro option. The cities mentioned in this thread are by and large major markets where dark fiber is available. You can do this without any joint facility. 5 years ago, it may have made sense. With the increasing availability of fiber in these major markets, I'm not sure that the expenditures are justifiable in the long term (beyond the next two to three years).
So looks like some people have figured out that provisioning a dark fiber cross connect is much cheaper and easier to upgrade than say, getting new STM-4 and 16's from various people in n points across their topology.
I'm not disagreeing with this, for obvious reasons.
Maybe. You can play financial capex games on equipment etc. Once you have this in place, it's a sunk cost; the upgrade path is clear and much easier than getting the ilec du jour (maybe another department) provision new circuits.
Again, not disparaging the incredible usefulness of dark fiber.
--msa
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 07:50:04PM -0700, Peering Resistance wrote:
This is an interesting tale, and one that everyone involved with the ISP world should know about.
This also isn't much news. It ain't collusion to keep costs down, nor is it collusion to offer cheaper transit services to your customers when they're in the same spaces as you... Considering how much hay some folks STILL make of the old head-of-line blocking at the MAEs and tit-for-tat interconnection upgrades, why is it a Bad Thing? There's a presumption that this indicates a major change; nope. Just folks sharing more of their criteria and realizing that some of the places in which they already inhabit/are planning to inhabit fir the bill. There also appears to be the presumption that one would ONLY be able to get service/connectivity/etc from these big dogs at these sites. I hadn't heard that. Of course there would be a thin-end-of-the-wedge, slippery slope argument if that were true, but it aint. The previous poster nailed it when pointing out the desire to fire-and-forget cost- effectively for fat PIs.
1) What are the selected sites? I'm sure there will be a press release of some kind.
2) How do the rest of us play? What do you mean by 'play'? If you meet a networks' peering bar, ask them. Most large networks have publicly-posted peering requirements. If you can't find them, ask. If you're a customer-level and not a peer, then don't. If you're a colo operator in a non-fiber-rich city upset that you've been passed over, get some facilities.
3) Why wasn't this process more open? What degree of openness would satisfy you? Business (just like people) need to decide where to spend their effort. I'm sure it's a waste of time to send the RFP to folks that don't have facilities in any of the cities you have in common with your top N (5? 8? 10?) peers. So I wouldn't expect the Hills of West Virginia IX [no offense to the West Virginians] to get a copy.
Likewise, I'm sure the businesses have their own definitions of return- on-investment for defining the Top N they want to play with. I'm sure the bean counters wnt a small N and the engineers want a large one. There are very few engineers that want to NARROW their choices, and very few bean counters that want to spend money, in this or any economy. For many folks, typically those who post anonymously in order to stir controversy, there is no satisfactory level of "openness". To quote Barry Shein "Yes, keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out of your head." Cheers, Joe "you may revisit the X-Disclaimer now" Provo -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>
participants (15)
-
Christian Kuhtz -
Curtis Maurand -
Daniel Golding -
David Diaz -
Fletcher E Kittredge -
Jeb R. Linton -
Jeff Aitken -
Joe Provo -
Leo Bicknell -
Majdi S. Abbas -
Peering Resistance -
Stephen Griffin -
Steve Feldman -
Steven J. Sobol -
Vijay Gill