At 15:39 10/22/96, Kent W. England wrote:
... But there isn't any gee-whiz technology that you can do at a private interconnect that you can't do at a NAP/MAE. Open NAPs aren't bad engineering.
While there is no difference from a technology perspective, there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects. One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering if a private interconnects for such traffic are available. /John
While there is no difference from a technology perspective, there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects.
Sure there is. Running one larger interconnect has the potential to be much less expensive and easier to run than many smaller ones. Economy of scale...
While there is no difference from a technology perspective, there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects.
Sure there is. Running one larger interconnect has the potential to be much less expensive and easier to run than many smaller ones. Economy of scale...
For whom? Just as a matter of curiosity, lets say 5 NSPs happen to share colo/FM at various locations across the US. What is the incremental cost to them of a back to back HSSI/FDDI connection? Almost certainly smaller than the lower performance and greater adminstrative hassle of paying someone else in the same facility running a NAP to move the packets for you, which also entails greater risk and unreliability. I would guess viability of the NAP model vs. the private interconnect model depends to a great extent on (a) peering policy and (b) for any given peer, what the traffic between networks is. Alex Bligh Xara Networks
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, Jon Zeeff wrote:
Sure there is. Running one larger interconnect has the potential to be much less expensive and easier to run than many smaller ones. Economy of scale...
Perhaps from the perspective of a NAP operator, maybe. Large interconnects like MAE-East does not have better scaling characteristics then private interconnects, both from infrastructure and staff resources point of view. -dorian
On Tue, 22 Oct 1996, John Curran wrote:
At 15:39 10/22/96, Kent W. England wrote:
... But there isn't any gee-whiz technology that you can do at a private interconnect that you can't do at a NAP/MAE. Open NAPs aren't bad engineering.
While there is no difference from a technology perspective, there's also no benefit to be gained by interconnecting large networks at a public (as opposed to private) interconnects.
John, you say there is no benefit to be gained by large providers using anything other than private inter-connects. may i refine that question slightly and ask: benefit **to whom?** to the large provider? If the question of benefit is limited in this manner, i'd guess that your statement is quite correct. but what does this discussion begin to bring in focus regarding the evolving topology of the internet? i wrote more than a year ago about the "club of six" being at the top of the internet hierarchy by virtue of interconnects and peering with each other at most of the five major exchange points. Since then one of many obvious questions is: what does it take for the six to become seven and the seven to become eight. Etc. Since I do not have direct acces to routers at major exhange points, I cannot easily tell who is peering with whom. not many people will talk about this even privately. yet the conscensus has been that there will be new members, because the alternative would mean inviting anti trust action. Candidates are obviously companies like BBN, netcom, advantis, crl, AT&T and others. Thus I hear statements like the club of 6 has now become the club of at least 15.... and presumably all is well. When you get big enough, you to can connect to the internet at the very apex as demarcated by major naps in the us and soon in asia and europe. *BUT* here is my question. Don't private interconnects essentially provide a new apex for the internet? One that pushes interconnects at the major exchange points down a level. Sprint, MCI, UUNET, and BBN are clearly the four largest players by market share. All of them have multiple private interconnects with each other. perhaps ANS does as well. AGIS certainly does not. So in this sense, the "6" have not really become 15 but rather have become 4 or maybe 5. now you may say that from a competitive point of view this makes no difference. perhaps. But what if the big four no longer see the need to upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points? what happens to the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded. Will we hear them complain about ungodly packet loss and move to the industrial strength service of the big four who can do hot potato hand offs to each other at multiple private exchanges around the US and increasingly around the world? if such is the case, how will the secondary ten ever get enough customers to convince the top four to let them do private exchanges as well? Is this part of an inevitable dynamic that is and will channel market share into the hands of the top four? Given the need of the automotive network exchange, will it, under these conditions, certify anyone except the top four? One would certainly think it would certify the top 15 but if the stratification between service at private interconnects and public exchanges continues, could it certify anyone except the top four?
One can certainly make the argument that running large traffic flows through shared interconnects is bad engineering if a private interconnects for such traffic are available.
/John
True, but what about the economic and public policy aspects of such decisions?
Gord', You said:
"... But what if the big four no longer see the need to upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points? what happens to the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded. "
The argument can be made, and there might be empirical data to back it up, that the private interconnects actually offload *at least in the short term* the participants' pipes into the public exchange points. For example, if a significant fraction (1/4th to 1/3rd) of the S and M and ... traffic into a public exchange is S and M and ... talking among each other, then offloading much of it at some other place might reduce the fractions (maybe to 1/10th to 1/5th). Of course, if their business models do not include eventual upgrading of their pipes into public exchanges, they will have to balance the reduced <performance|reachability> to the Internet at large as seen by their customers against any savings from not upgrading. (Disclaimer: I pulled the numbers out of thin air, so anybody who quotes them is as foolish as I for having put numbers in writing in the first place.) --Steve
*BUT* here is my question. Don't private interconnects essentially provide a new apex for the internet? One that pushes interconnects at the major exchange points down a level. Sprint, MCI, UUNET, and BBN are clearly the four largest players by market share. All of them have multiple private interconnects with each other. perhaps ANS does as well. AGIS certainly does not. So in this sense, the "6" have not really become 15 but rather have become 4 or maybe 5.
Gordon, I have no intention to support or counter your argument. Just trying to state the fact: ANS does have private interconnections with other providers and is working on to establish more. --Jessica
Gordon Cook wrote:
now you may say that from a competitive point of view this makes no difference. perhaps. But what if the big four no longer see the need to upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points? what happens to the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded. Will we hear them complain about ungodly packet loss and move to the industrial strength service of the big four who can do hot potato hand offs to each other at multiple private exchanges around the US and increasingly around the world? if such is the case, how will the secondary ten ever get enough customers to convince the top four to let them do private exchanges as well?
Is this part of an inevitable dynamic that is and will channel market share into the hands of the top four?
Gordon - You're describing the dilemma of any newcomers to the net: Assuming that the new net can get peering agreements at the public ix's (this in itself is not easily assumed) there is still an uphill battle. . If you don't have private interconnects, your traffic goes over the 90% avg. utilized links between the IX point and the large provider's backbone. This makes it difficult to get and keep customers - after all, 75% of the internet is lossy/slow to them, and if they switch to any of the larger providers they don't see that loss. . You can't get a private interconnect with another provider unless you have the traffic (customers) to justify it. See previous point as to why you can't get the customers. Interesting points. Rod
As one who is living this senerio on a daily basis, I can tell you it's frustrating and upsetting. We have gone so far as to test the legality of what is happening (there *must* be someone we can sue <grin>). Public peering works well these days as the large networks move their traffic off the NAPs, freeing up bandwidth for the mid to smaller networks. The model that makes sense to me, is for the largest networks to exchange traffic through private interconnects, and for them to treat the aggregated NAP traffic as another large ISP. The NAP is then used for the 2nd tier and smaller providers to exchange traffic with each other, as well as a collection point to gather up traffic for the large networks. Unfortunately, at least so far, the first tier providers are not supporting this approach, forcing me and others I assume, to purchase connectivity. Best Regards, Robert Laughlin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DataXchange sales: 800-863-1550 http://www.dx.net Network Operations Center: 703-903-7412 -or- 888-903-7412 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 23 Oct 1996, Rod Nayfield wrote:
Gordon - You're describing the dilemma of any newcomers to the net: Assuming that the new net can get peering agreements at the public ix's (this in itself is not easily assumed) there is still an uphill battle.
. If you don't have private interconnects, your traffic goes over the 90% avg. utilized links between the IX point and the large provider's backbone. This makes it difficult to get and keep customers - after all, 75% of the internet is lossy/slow to them, and if they switch to any of the larger providers they don't see that loss.
. You can't get a private interconnect with another provider unless you have the traffic (customers) to justify it. See previous point as to why you can't get the customers.
Interesting points.
Rod
participants (9)
-
Alex.Bligh -
Dorian R. Kim -
Gordon Cook -
Jessica Yu -
John Curran -
jon＠branch.net -
Robert Laughlin -
Rod Nayfield -
Steve Goldstein