... 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. ...
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.
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision. as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with. however, in a former job, i took the reins of abovenet and used a lot of mfn fiber and mfn resources (back when they had resources to use, that is) and built a network that touched down in more places with more gigawhuppas and more bit-miles and so on than about half of the current so called "top tier" networks had then (or indeed have now). i surrounded PSI on all sides, with a network that carried more actual traffic and had more provable headroom, and more endpoints. yet they still insisted on playing peering games. (perhaps if they'd won those games they would still exist today?) peering is not about equity, or ratios, or technology. it's about money. sadly, too many people are focusing on their share of the current market rather than on the size of the eventual market, so, short-term thinking pervades the space, and the actual customers who source and sink all this traffic don't ride a curve that looks anything like moore's law. try a thought experiment. take about $450M in vee cee money, buy up a lot of bankrupt capital and routes, hire a bunch of starving backbone engineers and sales/marketing/finance/etc people at downsized salaries, and build a network that attends about 40 major carrier interconnect locations (some internet exchanges, some carrier motels). document the hell out of it, so that when you enter peering negotiations with the current "top tier" networks you've got "attachment A" already done and audited. now ask yourself the chances of becoming defaultless and settlement free before you run out of cash. (now, does anybody still think peering is a technology issue?)
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.
like i said, we're living in the shadow of bankrupt overcapacity, and until we burn it off, "cost per bit-mile" is going to be too low to measure when compared with "cost per peering edge". the next six to twelve months will favour the "small number of large peering edges" model. once the capital and routes are rightpriced, and transit contracts are rightpriced, and we reach some kind of equilibrium between the value and cost of traffic, then some kind of technological argument about peering might hold some sway.
I love that Paul can be correct in an email and still make me smile. The smile was the 1000x growth in internet traffic in a year. Paul is right, this is a business case. Since most people in the thread already make great points, I wont rehash them. I think this is a standard peering argument that you could argue going back to 1999 ISPcon panel that Bill Norton hosted. There it was UUNET with ratios and settlement. I will make the comment that I have a lot of respect for the AOL guys and Im sure there are some considerations that we are all not privy too. To bolster their argument though, unlike uunet had at the time (or now) they do have caching servers, so that helps their argument of ratio consideration. As for the business point, I always felt that peering was no place to make the money, which was not substantial anyhow, and likely short sighted. The reason is, once you agree to that dirty word settlement, someone is likely to turn around and hit you up with it. Since you now have "unclean" hands, it's hard for you to argue against it. You should built a better backbone and use that and whatever model you have to out-compete your competition. During these times I think it makes more sense to enhance the internet such that new technologies and uses can arise thereby driving business for us all. As Paul mentioned, peering enhances the experience for users, but most apps dont need them today, and you need to justify a business model. If one follows what happened in the computer world, we had a huge rapid growth in mips which no one could see a use for. Then the GUI came about and ever larger apps. The GUI enhanced the experience (no unix flames please). Could we not then say that an enhanced internet "backbone" might create the matrix for new apps or technology not able to thrive today? I am sure not many of us predicted the user to user traffic a few years ago. Eyeballs to eyeballs traffic (peer to peer networking) just did not exist, but as DSL was widely deployed apps emerged to help fill the pipes. Im sure a lot of eyeball networks were happy they did some good private peering connections to handle the initial traffic. My 2cents. David At 22:32 +0000 12/29/02, Paul Vixie wrote:
... 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. ...
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.
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with.
however, in a former job, i took the reins of abovenet and used a lot of mfn fiber and mfn resources (back when they had resources to use, that is) and built a network that touched down in more places with more gigawhuppas and more bit-miles and so on than about half of the current so called "top tier" networks had then (or indeed have now). i surrounded PSI on all sides, with a network that carried more actual traffic and had more provable headroom, and more endpoints. yet they still insisted on playing peering games. (perhaps if they'd won those games they would still exist today?)
peering is not about equity, or ratios, or technology. it's about money. sadly, too many people are focusing on their share of the current market rather than on the size of the eventual market, so, short-term thinking pervades the space, and the actual customers who source and sink all this traffic don't ride a curve that looks anything like moore's law.
try a thought experiment. take about $450M in vee cee money, buy up a lot of bankrupt capital and routes, hire a bunch of starving backbone engineers and sales/marketing/finance/etc people at downsized salaries, and build a network that attends about 40 major carrier interconnect locations (some internet exchanges, some carrier motels). document the hell out of it, so that when you enter peering negotiations with the current "top tier" networks you've got "attachment A" already done and audited. now ask yourself the chances of becoming defaultless and settlement free before you run out of cash. (now, does anybody still think peering is a technology issue?)
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.
like i said, we're living in the shadow of bankrupt overcapacity, and until we burn it off, "cost per bit-mile" is going to be too low to measure when compared with "cost per peering edge". the next six to twelve months will favour the "small number of large peering edges" model. once the capital and routes are rightpriced, and transit contracts are rightpriced, and we reach some kind of equilibrium between the value and cost of traffic, then some kind of technological argument about peering might hold some sway.
-- David Diaz dave@smoton.net [Email] pagedave@smoton.net [Pager] www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
This depends on how you define business decision. I view a business decision as one where a company selling a product gets to make choices about that product - but, and this is a big part - remains in business. Having the product work in the first place is a business requirement. I don't buy into the logic that making a (known) broken product is a business decision, as no one makes a business decision with a known, up-front outcome of failure. A business decision is something like choosing to put cheap plastic trim in a car and sell it cheap, or the best Italian leather and sell it for a lot of money. Building a car that doesn't break down every 10 miles and needs to be towed back to the garage isn't a business decision, it's a requirement to be in the car business at all. Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy thing we all run work. As we've seen with companies like PSI, those who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up dead. So there are really two things to talk about. From a technological point of view what's the minimum amount of peering necessary to make things work, and then from a business perspective what further optimizations can be made to make your customers more happy, or reduce your costs, or both. Trying to make it all a business decision is as wrong as trying to make it all about technology. Looking at only one side gives you have the picture. In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
...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?
Argument #1, don't peer with the little guy because it takes revenue away from ISP's in general. In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with.
Argument #2, it's easy for me, a little guy to get peering because I don't compete with the ISP's, I just buy from them. So which is it? Do you peer with the little guys who don't run networks because content peering is good, or do you not peer with them because it forces them to buy from somebody, and if everyone does that it's good for ISP's in general? It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look really good? At 9:50 -0500 12/30/02, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
This depends on how you define business decision. I view a business decision as one where a company selling a product gets to make choices about that product - but, and this is a big part - remains in business. Having the product work in the first place is a business requirement. I don't buy into the logic that making a (known) broken product is a business decision, as no one makes a business decision with a known, up-front outcome of failure.
A business decision is something like choosing to put cheap plastic trim in a car and sell it cheap, or the best Italian leather and sell it for a lot of money. Building a car that doesn't break down every 10 miles and needs to be towed back to the garage isn't a business decision, it's a requirement to be in the car business at all.
Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy thing we all run work. As we've seen with companies like PSI, those who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up dead. So there are really two things to talk about. From a technological point of view what's the minimum amount of peering necessary to make things work, and then from a business perspective what further optimizations can be made to make your customers more happy, or reduce your costs, or both.
Trying to make it all a business decision is as wrong as trying to make it all about technology. Looking at only one side gives you have the picture.
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
...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?
Argument #1, don't peer with the little guy because it takes revenue away from ISP's in general.
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with.
Argument #2, it's easy for me, a little guy to get peering because I don't compete with the ISP's, I just buy from them.
So which is it? Do you peer with the little guys who don't run networks because content peering is good, or do you not peer with them because it forces them to buy from somebody, and if everyone does that it's good for ISP's in general? It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too.
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline
Attachment converted: Superbook HD:Untitled 337 (????/----) (000F0AD7)
-- David Diaz dave@smoton.net [Email] pagedave@smoton.net [Pager] www.smoton.net [Peering Site under development] Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
Thus spake David Diaz <techlist@smoton.net>:
Is it just me or does all this make Internap's Business model look really good?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INAP&d=t "EPS (ttm) -1.23" -- triple their current share price -- doesn't make their business model look so hot. S
On Mon, 30 Dec 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
there we go again, talking technology and making the technological kind of sense. peering isn't a technology decision, it's a business decision.
This depends on how you define business decision. I view a business decision as one where a company selling a product gets to make choices about that product - but, and this is a big part - remains in business. Having the product work in the first place is a business requirement. I don't buy into the logic that making a (known) broken product is a business decision, as no one makes a business decision with a known, up-front outcome of failure.
Which is my thought exactly. Surely a business decision around a technological product must make technological sense before it can make business sense else as you say what you sell is a broken product. Technology says you should make sure you have good connectivity on the major arteries of your network .. if that doesnt make business sense then you're business model is wrong! Looking for sales is fine but if it goes against the founding technological and business model then its not going to happen! Steve
A business decision is something like choosing to put cheap plastic trim in a car and sell it cheap, or the best Italian leather and sell it for a lot of money. Building a car that doesn't break down every 10 miles and needs to be towed back to the garage isn't a business decision, it's a requirement to be in the car business at all.
Similarly to peering, a base amount is required to make this crazy thing we all run work. As we've seen with companies like PSI, those who terminate, or loose significant peering generally end up dead. So there are really two things to talk about. From a technological point of view what's the minimum amount of peering necessary to make things work, and then from a business perspective what further optimizations can be made to make your customers more happy, or reduce your costs, or both.
Trying to make it all a business decision is as wrong as trying to make it all about technology. Looking at only one side gives you have the picture.
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 09:12:16PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
...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?
Argument #1, don't peer with the little guy because it takes revenue away from ISP's in general.
In a message written on Sun, Dec 29, 2002 at 10:32:25PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
as a local operator myself (ISC), i know that i should not expect peering other than if someone wants their customers to have better access to the f-root server or the kernel.org ftp server or whatever. it's actually easier for me, as a nonprofit, to attract what mr. bill calls 'content peering' relationships, since i don't compete with the folks i peer with.
Argument #2, it's easy for me, a little guy to get peering because I don't compete with the ISP's, I just buy from them.
So which is it? Do you peer with the little guys who don't run networks because content peering is good, or do you not peer with them because it forces them to buy from somebody, and if everyone does that it's good for ISP's in general? It seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too.
participants (5)
-
David Diaz -
Leo Bicknell -
Paul Vixie -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Stephen Sprunk