New peering criteria
Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria? Imagine: AT&T, C&W and UUNET announce new peering criteria. They will only peer with companies without the letter "P" in their name. PSI, failing to meet the publicly announced peering criteria, must buy transit or face the termination with extreme prejudice of traffic exchange with other providers. The spokesperson for the Three said, "All PSI has to do is change its name, its not our fault, we have no choice. Its in the peering criteria." This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we could change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the tariff. So you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do. Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf. Peering is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt more by the termination of peering. If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it in place.
Also sprach Sean Donelan
Is there any limit what a provider can write in a peering criteria?
...
This seems to be very much a telco mentality. We wrote the tariff, but we have no choice but to kill you because its in the tariff. Yes, we could change the tariff in less than 24-hours, but that's not in the tariff. So you must die. Sorry, there is nothing we can do.
No doubt...that is *so* true. To extend the comparison of ISP peering to the telco world...I found this ruling from the KY PSC entertaining and enlightning. Of particular interest to compare with the current C&W - PSI issue are issues 7 and 9 from this ruling, and to a lesser degree issue 18. Check it out. http://www.psc.state.ky.us/agencies/psc/orders/052001/2000465_16.pdf
Peering criteria seem to be nothing more than a fictional fig leaf. Peering is a straight business relationship. Which provider is hurt more by the termination of peering.
If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it in place.
Actually...I would say its more complicated than that. Any action taken by a corporation would be a positive thing. If the perception of severing peering is that it would hurt your company then the company won't do it. Now, it does get complicated in that you might see a company use a thought process along the lines of "Peering will hurt us, but it will hurt our competitor more, and hurting our competitor benefits us, and the benefit from hurting our competitor is greater than the hurt from severing the peering, so ultimately its a benefit to us to sever the peer" Of course, this all assumes that companies think through these things logically, which I think is folly (especially for telco/ISPs) -- Jeff McAdams Email: jeffm@iglou.com Head Network Administrator Voice: (502) 966-3848 IgLou Internet Services (800) 436-4456
On 6 Jun 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
If you think it will hurt the other provider more than you, you'll terminate the agreement. If you think it will hurt you more, you'll fight to keep it in place.
If it will hurt you more than it will hurt them, then you aren't a really a "peer", and in that case, the disparity is resolved by the use of a service contract whereby you pay them money in exchange for connectivity. /vijay
participants (3)
-
Jeff Mcadams -
Sean Donelan -
Vijay Gill