RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
Gordon, Lack of a global undisciplined peering and charging more for connections to "customer - ISP's" do not go hand-in-hand. Net Glossary (for effect): Bi-lateral: You both offer each other equality in important areas. Non-Binding: I woke up on the wrong side of the bed - See Ya! MAE/NAP: A place to trade better connectivity under certain conditions of equality - OR a place to run default free until I get caught. I believe that this is purely a model of economics, progressiveness and network protection. UUNet, MCI, and Sprint for the most part have always been the networks that were desirable to peer with at meet points. In the beginning, it was relatively easy to make that happen if you as a smaller network had the money to get to an appropriate NAP/MAE. You had to have a technical competency level, sales pitch and possible friend-in-the-biz to help you along, and if you had those things, you effectively had the secret handshake and you were in. Just because something like this worked in the past, doesn't mean that it will work in the future, and today is the future. The big Net's have been engineering private exchange points to move away from the mess at the MAE's for a while now. This should have been "Ah-Ha #1". Next, the newest NAPS don't have the level of Big Net participation as perhaps everyone thought they would, this should have been "Ah-Ha #2". And finally, with all of the rumor (and resulting fact) that "Net A, B and C will only peer with you if you are at X, Y and Z at OC-48 <g>" should have been "Ah-Ha #3" It's my opinion that it should come as no surprise that a change is being made in the way the Net carries data. This is like any business, you must be good at prediction and you must be good at picking your suppliers. If you did not predict this (and don't have a fall-back plan), then you probably won't be able to predict the next major obvious event. If you think that your suppliers will provide you with favorable terms - make sure you have a plan when and if those terms change. Best regards, David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm) dave@fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions
-----Original Message----- From: Gordon Cook [SMTP:cook@netaxs.com] Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 11:51 PM To: Dave Van Allen Cc: 'Stephen Balbach'; 'nanog@merit.edu'; 'inet-access@earth.com'; 'dave@oldcolo.com' Subject: RE: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
when they clean out all the competing backbones what is to prevent thenm from doubling and then tripling your charges Dave?
************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Dave Van Allen wrote:
Well said!
Gee, you mean that this *is* really a business??
Best regards,
David Van Allen - You Tools Corporation / FASTNET(tm) dave@fast.net (610) 289-1100 http://www.fast.net FASTNET - PA/NJ/DE Internet Solutions
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Balbach [SMTP:stephen@clark.net] Sent: Friday, May 02, 1997 6:43 AM To: Gordon Cook Cc: nanog@merit.edu; inet-access@earth.com; dave@oldcolo.com Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who? MCI? As UUNET and others of the big five move to consolidate their markets.......... let UUNET put the smaller national backbones against the wall and whom do the rest of ISP's have to rely on? Those ISPs who did not get hit in UUNET's first round of cuts. Will you get it in the neck in the second or the third round?
The only thing UUNET is cutting is Internet trees, and there are some who are protesting by hugging them. Clear out the chaff for next seasons crops.
Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats, it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model.
.stb
you seem to me to imply that the only way small players had to peer with the big boys at the NAPs....ie run default free....was by cheating, via failing to use "next hop self" in routing. That did happen. but the majors were also participants in explicit peering agreements with upwards of 40 to 60 other players.....some have told me so directly. how could they have figured it reasonable 6 to 12 months ago and now turn around and end it in anything other than a sheer naked anti competitive power grab? Peter lothberg expressed the intent of the majors quite well ...... a handful of huge players worldwide..... (5 to 8?) and everyone else a customer. that's NOT the internet I want to see. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://cookreport.com/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com On line speech of critics under attack by Ewing NJ School Board, go to http://cookreport.com/sboard.shtml ************************************************************************
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Gordon Cook wrote:
Peter lothberg expressed the intent of the majors quite well ...... a handful of huge players worldwide..... (5 to 8?) and everyone else a customer.
that's NOT the internet I want to see.
The 'majors' would be damn fools to try and dominate completely. I can think of nothing which will subject them to government regulation faster - led by Congress - than striving to exercise total economic control of the net. Especially when government itself uses the net to reach the people, and vice versa, and the swing of the mood is toward competition in the communications marketplace, not concentration. Who thinks otherwise? "Those [engineers?] who don't know history, are doomed to repeat it." Dave Hughes (who is not in this newsgroup, but is happy to post anyway)
participants (3)
-
Dave Hughes -
Dave Van Allen -
Gordon Cook