Because of problems like these, and the general trustworthiness of BGP4, the re-evaluation of peer requirements have been all but forced upon major backbone providers. Just imagine if you were UUNET, (or Sprint, or MCI, or anyone with heavy backbone traffic in general) and one of your BGP4 routing partners black holed part of your backbone...
Refusing to peer with other providers doesn't prevent any of those things, it simply makes it harder to get the right people talking to each other. If you have a peering agreement with the other provider, you have a communications channel to resolve problems. If you don't talk to the other provider ahead of time, then when they blackhole your backbone, you have no clue who to call at the other provider to get it fixed. Besides, most of the major providers previously based the bulk of their peering 'requirements' on how many DS3s you had. Now most 'major' providers seem to have gone cold turkey. MCI, Sprint, and UUNET told me they won't peer with *anyone* new. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
Besides, most of the major providers previously based the bulk of their peering 'requirements' on how many DS3s you had. Now most 'major' providers seem to have gone cold turkey. MCI, Sprint, and UUNET told me they won't peer with *anyone* new.
And from my "media learnt" view of US things, I can't wait for the first anti-trust suite :-) But seriously, lets face it, DS3's are "cheap" and these people want more customes no freeloaders. Like us, who are paying $5M+ a year for a trans-atlantic DS3 and Sprint are very insistant that we build a US network based on DS3s to peer with them, even with the obvious fact that we have no US customers and have already paid for a connection which in reality should be matched by the large US carriers, rather than taking the piss once you have this investment. I only mention Sprint, since the others you mention are a tad more sensible, but still slow, while Sprint are in a glacier. Regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter@wonderland.org @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/
Besides, most of the major providers previously based the bulk of their peering 'requirements' on how many DS3s you had. Now most 'major' providers seem to have gone cold turkey. MCI, Sprint, and UUNET told me they won't peer with *anyone* new.
And from my "media learnt" view of US things, I can't wait for the first anti-trust suite :-)
But seriously, lets face it, DS3's are "cheap" and these people want more customes no freeloaders. Like us, who are paying $5M+ a year for a trans-atlantic DS3 and Sprint are very insistant that we build a US network based on DS3s to peer with them, even with the obvious fact that we have no US customers and have already paid for a connection which in reality should be matched by the large US carriers, rather than taking the piss once you have this investment. I only mention Sprint, since the others you mention are a tad more sensible, but still slow, while Sprint are in a glacier.
I don't quite remember how we went from black holes to peering policies, but I certainly will put my two bits in ;0 MCI's policy seems very clear to myself. They require DS3 backbone, 3 DS3 IXPs and 24X7 noc. If you meet the requirement, you sign a document and then peering is initiated. Took a matter of 2-3 weeks for myself. Sprint's policy USED to be that, then they seemed to have backed off from all new peerings until "the end of summer". August 20th to be exact. But then nothing has been released. At least they are moving towards a policy, according to Marti Kiser at Sprint. Sprint has always been reluctant to peer, so this should have never been a shock to anyone. UUNet's policy is the one I have a problem with--there is no policy it seems. UUNET went from peering with everyone, regionals, etc. when Andrew Partan was there, to now not peering with anyone. They act interested, but then will come back to you with a. Private Peerings via DS3s or b. No peering because your network is not equivalent in size to the "multiple DS3s" they have coming from each hub. I still have not seen any written policies from UUNET. My feeling is the market will shift into forcing non-peering NSPs into peering relatively soon. How can companies like Sprint and UUNET not afford to peer with networks such as ourselves, @home, compuserve, and many others that they have refused, yet honor peerings with networks that have 1 T1 to an IXP. More and more people will simply shove their traffic through the already bogged down CIX router. For primarily West Coast isps, such as ourselves, this is not a problem. CIX is a much cheaper cost for shortest-path-out routing than backhauling the return traffic from Mae-East. Robert Bowman Exodus Communications Inc.
Regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter@wonderland.org @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/
I don't quite remember how we went from black holes to peering policies, but I certainly will put my two bits in ;0
Off topic is fun :)
MCI's policy seems very clear to myself. They require DS3 backbone, 3 DS3 IXPs and 24X7 noc. If you meet the requirement, you sign a document and then peering is initiated. Took a matter of 2-3 weeks for myself.
Yes but... maybe you didn't see what I said. Why should *I* (my company) install a US wide national network, to no-ones advantage except the leased line company, when we have already made the *huge* effort of moving the data across the atlantic. All these 3IX at DS3 policies indicate to me is the bigoted, pro-US nature of the NSPs over there. How about paying there way, since more and more of the content and customers are outside the US and it is in the interests of the customers of the NSPs to have better connecivity to Europe/Asia/elsewhere. Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe that the folks on the ground are in anyway that unconcious of the outside of the US, but past history gives the executives of these NSPs (Sprint in particular) the attitude that "if they [non-US NSP/ISPs] have paid for the line themselves up 'til now, lets see what else we can screw out of them".
UUNet's policy is the one I have a problem with--there is no policy it seems. UUNET went from peering with everyone, regionals, etc. when Andrew Partan was there, to now not peering with anyone. They act interested, but then will come back to you with a. Private Peerings via DS3s or b. No peering because your network is not equivalent in size to the "multiple DS3s" they have coming from each hub. I still have not seen any written policies from UUNET.
I have been informed that the new policy is being formulated and there may be something this year. All this means is that the big NSPs will get good connectivity to each other and the rest of the market will have good connectivity to each other and then the bleed over between the two "tiers". Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ? regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter@wonderland.org @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/
I don't quite remember how we went from black holes to peering policies, but I certainly will put my two bits in ;0
Off topic is fun :)
MCI's policy seems very clear to myself. They require DS3 backbone, 3 DS3 IXPs and 24X7 noc. If you meet the requirement, you sign a document and then peering is initiated. Took a matter of 2-3 weeks for myself.
Yes but... maybe you didn't see what I said. Why should *I* (my company) install a US wide national network, to no-ones advantage except the leased line company, when we have already made the *huge* effort of moving the data across the atlantic.
All these 3IX at DS3 policies indicate to me is the bigoted, pro-US nature of the NSPs over there. How about paying there way, since more and more of the content and customers are outside the US and it is in the interests of the customers of the NSPs to have better connecivity to Europe/Asia/elsewhere.
Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe that the folks on the ground are in anyway that unconcious of the outside of the US, but past history gives the executives of these NSPs (Sprint in particular) the attitude that "if they [non-US NSP/ISPs] have paid for the line themselves up 'til now, lets see what else we can screw out of them".
I agree with you that the US NSPs/ISPs are extremely bigoted with regards to the Europeans. We somehow think that the Internet revolves around the US, which may be partially true.. only until big brother over here gets on the regulation bandwagon and destroys our market. Getting really off the topic now ;) Nowhere in any of the above mentioned ISPs have I seen a policy stating that these had to be US DS3 IXP connections. I'm interested to see how many of the 3 have connectivity into LINX and other IXPs in Europe. That should/could qualify I suppose. If it didn't, then they are making a huge mistake. By having the Europeans front the cost for transatlantic, and then not peering with them, seems not only selfish, but idiotic.
UUNet's policy is the one I have a problem with--there is no policy it seems. UUNET went from peering with everyone, regionals, etc. when Andrew Partan was there, to now not peering with anyone. They act interested, but then will come back to you with a. Private Peerings via DS3s or b. No peering because your network is not equivalent in size to the "multiple DS3s" they have coming from each hub. I still have not seen any written policies from UUNET.
I have been informed that the new policy is being formulated and there may be something this year.
All this means is that the big NSPs will get good connectivity to each other and the rest of the market will have good connectivity to each other and then the bleed over between the two "tiers".
I don't know why, but I am optimisitc that Sprint will do the right thing.
Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ?
Realistically, wouldn't you agree that that is the goal of the NSPs and ISPs that won't peer? It obviously is not a resource hog. There ARE alternative motives. But who can blame them in the wonderful world of the commercial Internet? It could be worse.. Uncle U.S. could step in and force them to peer with everyone. Rob Exodus Communications Inc.
Hallo,
Yes but... maybe you didn't see what I said. Why should *I* (my company) install a US wide national network, to no-ones advantage except the leased line company, when we have already made the *huge* effort of moving the data across the atlantic.
It would be to the european comany's advantage, IF A/ they could not peer with the transit provider(s) for the desired customer base B/ they gained more benefit from reaching the customer base than it cost them It's important to remember the various rationale for filtering peers: i/ decrease the number of folks who can hurt the peering neighbor through flapping or errors ii/ don't want to carry traffic acros the US, requiring you to be throughout the US. iii/ the big person gains less than the litle by peering, so the little person shuld pay (purchase transit) Certainly there are other reasons, certainly they are up for debate, but they are real reasons I've heard in different contexts.
All these 3IX at DS3 policies indicate to me is the bigoted, pro-US nature of the NSPs over there. How about paying there way, since more and more of the content and customers are outside the US and it is in the interests of the customers of the NSPs to have better connecivity to Europe/Asia/elsewhere.
It is in their interest to have better connectivity, but perhaps not to the tune of $8M/year. Besides, as is alluded to earlier, who needs it more, the US or the europeans? I'd like to see some middle ground, but I can see and understand the mentality of the US-centric actions.
the attitude that "if they [non-US NSP/ISPs] have paid for the line themselves up 'til now, lets see what else we can screw out of them".
Supply and demand, unfortunately....
Nowhere in any of the above mentioned ISPs have I seen a policy stating that these had to be US DS3 IXP connections. I'm interested to see how many of the 3 have connectivity into LINX and other IXPs in Europe. That should/could qualify I suppose. If it didn't, then they are making a huge mistake. By having the Europeans front the cost for transatlantic, and then not peering with them, seems not only selfish, but idiotic.
True.... US companys would prefer to send traffic to Europe over someone else's lines if the quality was high enough. Perhaps if the European company offered to transit European traffic for them? :-)
Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ?
Realistically, wouldn't you agree that that is the goal of the NSPs and ISPs that won't peer? It obviously is not a resource hog. There ARE alternative motives. But who can blame them in the wonderful world of the commercial Internet? It could be worse.. Uncle U.S. could step in and force them to peer with everyone.
Just to add a bit to that, the US Government could force providers to peer with all providers meeting certain requirements (enter telco history) but I think there would be difficulty requiring them to peer with non-US companies. $0.02 -alan
It would be to the european comany's advantage, IF
A/ they could not peer with the transit provider(s) for the desired customer base
B/ they gained more benefit from reaching the customer base than it cost them
Ah, as per the other mail in this thread, maybe the words transit and peering have been mixed up. I should really be referring to peering. And from that point, as and when the two peers have additional good paths to offer each other, they can be exchanged in some amicable way, until eventually this thing called transit happens. For a pair of ISP/NSPs this can be a gradual process, and you should not be betting your company on a "free" transit arrangement. I think.
It is in their interest to have better connectivity, but perhaps not to the tune of $8M/year. Besides, as is alluded to earlier, who needs it more, the US or the europeans? I'd like to see some middle ground, but I can see and understand the mentality of the US-centric actions.
Sad I know.
True.... US companys would prefer to send traffic to Europe over someone else's lines if the quality was high enough.
You mean they actually consider quality over "free" ? I don't think so.
Perhaps if the European company offered to transit European traffic for them? :-)
That carrot has been there before... no help - Europe is this small *country* over the sea as far at these peopl are concerned. The really sad thing is that while international lines between European countries cost so much (the T1 cost from London to New York is about the same as an E1 from London to Paris/Amsterdam/Stockholm etc) it is easier for people to buy more bandwidth to the US rather than European IX's - which would be (a) sensible and (b) the "stick" to demonstrate to the US NSPs that "we don't need them" - note the quotes.
Just to add a bit to that, the US Government could force providers to peer with all providers meeting certain requirements (enter telco history) but I think there would be difficulty requiring them to peer with non-US companies.
Hmm. I don't think I wish that even on them ;) Regards, -- Peter Galbavy peter@wonderland.org @ Home phone://44/973/499465 in Wonderland http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/ snail://UK/NW1_6LE/London/21_Harewood_Avenue/
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 19:35:31 +0100 (BST) Peter Galbavy <peter@wonderland.org> alleged:
The really sad thing is that while international lines between European countries cost so much (the T1 cost from London to New York is about the same as an E1 from London to Paris/Amsterdam/Stockholm etc) it is easier for people to buy more bandwidth to the US rather than European IX's - which would be (a) sensible and (b) the "stick" to demonstrate to the US NSPs that "we don't need them" - note the quotes.
Well thats not true. UK ISP's especially dialup supplying companies such as Demon and Easynet do need the USA. Firstly most of us give away software that is from the USA. MSIE and Netscape are the classic examples. The first place most new Internet users go to is www.netscape.com. If you've got a slow connection to netscape you will lose custom. Its nothing to do with what the ISP needs. Its to do with what the *CUSTOMER* [remember that person that makes it all possible] wants. 60% of our userbase require fast access to the USA. So in any future planning we have to take that into account. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996 17:37:10 +0100 (BST) Peter Galbavy <peter@wonderland.org> alleged:
I have been informed that the new policy is being formulated and there may be something this year.
All this means is that the big NSPs will get good connectivity to each other and the rest of the market will have good connectivity to each other and then the bleed over between the two "tiers".
Market forces will eventually win, but how many customers of the "other tier" ISPs will be pissed off during this time ?
Wow, Talk about kettle pots and black. Anyway. The above sounds like bad management to me. Spending "5M a year" for a connection that doesn't connect to anything seems a bit insane. Maybe arranging the peering before such a large investment would pay off a little more? If I was spending so much on a connection I would want to ensure that I was getting my 5M worth. Neil. -- Neil J. McRae. Alive and Kicking. E A S Y N E T G R O U P P L C neil@EASYNET.NET NetBSD/sparc: 100% SpF (Solaris protection Factor) Free the daemon in your <A HREF="http://www.NetBSD.ORG/">computer!</A>
On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Robert Bowman wrote:
My feeling is the market will shift into forcing non-peering NSPs into peering relatively soon. How can companies like Sprint and UUNET not afford to peer with networks such as ourselves, @home, compuserve, and many others that they have refused, yet honor peerings with networks that have 1 T1 to an IXP. More and more people will simply shove their traffic through the already bogged down CIX router.
Nope. More and more people will peer with each other but not with the big 6 thus eventually creating a parallel universe at the core of the net. Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (6)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
Michael Dillon -
Neil J. McRae -
Peter Galbavy -
Robert Bowman -
Sean Donelan