Re: Peering versus Transit
Peering is becoming a real touchy issue. Most of the larger providers don't really want to peer with anyone else because they can't really handle the extra traffic, or they are afraid of peering with a company that doesn't have the technical staff that is truly knowledgable about backbone routing. With the major peering points getting more accessable to smaller providers, this becomes even more evident. And to be truthful, it can be understood. Their have been quite a ISP's get temporarily shutdown at one of the MAE's because of "errors" in routing procedures. No names mentioned, but for example about changing peering requirements. One of the larger providers said they required three meet points + 2-3 private interconnects at DS-3 or higher... when we said that we could do that by the end of November, they said, "Really?.. that is going to cost both companies a large sum in hardware and DS-3 local loop fees." They changed their requirements to be just three meet points. If you look at the monthly cost of buying a DS-3 from MCI, Sprint, UUNet, AGIS, or PSI, it is much cheaper to get a connection to a MAE, and trying to get peering. Eric At 10:07 PM 9/30/96 -2900, you wrote:
Sean,
It almost makes one think the evil telcos are plotting a new service/product that would be damaged by legacy contracts, eh?
-alan internet engineer for the enquirer?
These days peering agreements are business deals.
They have always been business deals. I'm just amazed as some of the lengths some providers go to justify what should be a plain-old business decision. If you don't intend to peer with another provider, just say so. The only providers I tend to get really peeved at are the ones that keep changing their stories.
AGIS told me in January '96 that their peering agreement was being revised by their lawyers and they would send it as soon as it was ready. Since I hadn't heard from AGIS in a while, I sent another note to AGIS and was told they now require DS3 connections to four exchange points. No idea what happened to that peering agreement from January.
MCI told me in February '96 that their peering agreement as on hold pending review by their lawyers and they would let me know when it was ready. The last response I've received from MCI is the person in charge of peering had changed. No word from the new guy. And MCI took their peering policies off their web page. No idea what happened to MCI's policies in the mean time.
Since March of 1995 (yes '95) I've gone through three product managers for Sprintlink who have told me their peering agreement is on the way, under legal review, on hold, or being revised. DRA met Sprint's peering 'requirements' a couple of times now. But by the time I hear back from their product manager du jure, they've changed their requirements again.
I'm puzzled why these providers seem to have new peers show up at the same time they are telling me new peerings are on 'hold.' Should I start taking this personally? If you don't intend to peer with other providers, why not say so? Why go through the trouble of making peering questionaires and listing peering requirements, when you are just going to come up with a new excuse if you don't want to peer with the other provider.
They happen to be business deals that have $0 attached to them for all sorts of reasons Sean D et al explained far more eloquently than I could, but they are still business agreements. Just like any other contract, be in breach at your peril.
Breach of contract is a civil matter, not criminal. If you have a peering agreement that says thou shalt not next-hop third-party routes, and they do, you get to terminate the agreement and/or sue the other provider, not arrest them.
People seem to be very quick to call things they don't like illegal. Not all misrouted packets are the result of illegal activities, most of them are just misrouted packets. MCI didn't plan to send me packets across mae-east, they just happened to believe some bad routing
information.
If you are going to start arresting people simply because packets are misrouted, big providers misroute a lot more packets than little providers simply due to size. This is a dangerous game to start playing because it can easily blow up in your face.
Which leaves the case where you send traffic to say ISP X *without* any form of peering agreement with ISP X. Contracts with the IXP should prevent this from happening. If you try this, I hope they filter your MAC address.
Some IXPs do this, but the operators aren't always able to keep up with the changing arrangements of the various providers and end up blackholing a bunch of traffic every so often for varying lengths of time. The routing protocols have problems dealing with networks which don't have the 'shared- fate' property.
Most other IXP contracts are silent about relationships between ISPs. -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
-- Alan Hannan Not Employed Networking, Ltd. email: alan@mindvision.com. phone: 402/488-0238
________________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer ACSI - Advanced Data Servics - ATM/IP Backbone NOC - 800-291-7889 - noc@acsi.net
Peering is becoming a real touchy issue. Most of the larger providers don't really want to peer with anyone else because they can't really handle the extra traffic, or they are afraid of peering with a company that doesn't have the technical staff that is truly knowledgable about backbone routing.
With the major peering points getting more accessable to smaller providers, this becomes even more evident. And to be truthful, it can be understood. Their have been quite a ISP's get temporarily shutdown at one of the MAE's because of "errors" in routing procedures.
No names mentioned, but for example about changing peering requirements. One of the larger providers said they required three meet points + 2-3 private interconnects at DS-3 or higher... when we said that we could do that by the end of November, they said, "Really?.. that is going to cost both companies a large sum in hardware and DS-3 local loop fees." They changed their requirements to be just three meet points.
If you look at the monthly cost of buying a DS-3 from MCI, Sprint, UUNet, AGIS, or PSI, it is much cheaper to get a connection to a MAE, and trying to get peering.
Eric
But you're talking about getting connections to 3 exchange points and the "stuff" in between. I would say costs might be roughly even. But what about when you add in the network engineering, monitoring, and maintenance you need when you run your own network? Have you checked out market price on clueful network people who dance with BGP? The cost comparison might look different then... Avi
Hi Avi,
But what about when you add in the network engineering, monitoring, and maintenance you need when you run your own network? Have you checked out market price on clueful network people who dance with BGP? The cost comparison might look different then...
I am in the process of finding a dancing sponser right now. I am not finding that the salary is really an issue at all. I dunno if I'm not as high-priced as some (doubtful, I've rather expensive hobbies) but the main challenge for me is/has been finding a fun challenging network to grow in a cool environment that has a good business plan. Not finding someone to pay me what I want :-) I think when a company looks at paying $X-$Y gross monthly recurring, and they know that a clever netsavvy fellow like ourselves can save them that in utilization tricks, and can regenerate that revenue through clueful conversation with customers, they make some rather astute business decisions :-) Large numbers of people are expensive, building large NOCs, support, implementation and sales engineers has a mediumish expense when scaled. But clueful design/expansion/transition types can have large investments. Certainly a modicum of skill is needed in each of those areas, but the theory and procedures (IMHO) can originate from a smallerish source. At least, that's what I'm seeing.... -alan
On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
But you're talking about getting connections to 3 exchange points and the "stuff" in between. I would say costs might be roughly even.
But what about when you add in the network engineering, monitoring, and maintenance you need when you run your own network? Have you checked out market price on clueful network people who dance with BGP? The cost comparison might look different then...
Yes, at that point it is much less to buy access from a large NSP. The problem is that you lose a lot when you do that. You can't make any money if you are getting your access from a up-stream provider. Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phone (703)524-4800 NetRail, Inc. Fax (703)534-5033 2007 N. 15 St. Suite 5 Email sales@netrail.net Arlington, Va. 22201 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Access: (703) 524-4802 guest --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:34
Yes, at that point it is much less to buy access from a large NSP. The problem is that you lose a lot when you do that. You can't make any money if you are getting your access from a up-stream provider.
Nathan Stratton CEO, NetRail, Inc. Tracking the future today!
Depends on what you think bandwidth needs and costs will be in the future perhaps... Avi
participants (4)
-
alan＠mindvision.com -
Avi Freedman -
Eric D. Madison -
Nathan Stratton