UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of the well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well, is now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have to **sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET or simply be cut off. I first heard an opaque reference to this from a nationally known figure a couple of months ago. In the last 10 days I have heard separately and privately from three different people one of whom is directly affected. I asked him to call me. He never did. Now I think I understand why. Hughes said that David (?) Hollub who is responsible for the Well's connectivity and has just been fired by Bruce Katz the well's owner has revealed in a well conference what UUNET is doing and that the story made it into the wall street journal today. I will be sending Hughes a summary understanding of what I think this means that he will post on the Well inviting national journalists to call me for whatever information/insight I can give them into the story. I would especially like to begin hearing from those directly affected. Please detail very precisely what restrictions you place on the information you send me. 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 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 ************************************************************************
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
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Stephen Balbach wrote:
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.
Sure, if UUNET was only cutting peering with small ISPs who were only at one NAP, and had peering because of a backdoor deal years ago. It appears that UUNET is cutting peering with those medium-sized ISPs who *have* built a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone. I really don't see how squeezing the medium-sized ISPs who have already invested the millions of dollars it takes to build a national backbone helps anyone but UUNET. I see this as a direct attack on the smaller regional and national ISPs who have been taking customers away from UUNET because of better performance and better service. The issue here isn't getting other ISPs to examine their business model. If an ISP has already installed a national network, they have either done their research, figured their costs and potential gains, and invested the money wisely, or they are made of money, and since few ISPs I know of are made of money, I'll bet they did the background work. One of the reasons to install a national network is that some large ISPs state flat-out that they won't consider peering unless you are are connected to a certain number of naps with at at least T3/OC3 speeds, which is a reasonable requirement, but to tell someone that, and then either raise the standards to an illogical level (guess which national ISP said someone would have to have at least 100 coast-to-coast T3s to even be considered for peering recently) or just plain terminate peering with all but the largest ISPs seems underhanded at best. It's UUNET's network, and they can do what they want with it, but UUNET/Worldcom/MFS won't be getting much more business from us if these actions continue. ________ \______/ Jeremiah Kristal \____/ Network Operations \__/ IDT Internet Services \/ jeremiah@hq.idt.net 201-928-4454
Jeremiah Kristal wrote:
Sure, if UUNET was only cutting peering with small ISPs who were only at one NAP, and had peering because of a backdoor deal years ago. It appears that UUNET is cutting peering with those medium-sized ISPs who *have* built a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone. I really don't see how squeezing the medium-sized ISPs who have already invested the millions of dollars it takes to build a national backbone helps anyone but UUNET. I see this as a direct attack on the smaller regional and national ISPs who have been taking customers away from UUNET because of better performance and better service.
I see this as driven by practicality and economics. - Eight or so "national backbones" have materialized in the last year. Each one of those requires that engineering devise and then implement a routing policy, each of which is different than all the others written before because of a different combination of exchange points the new net is present at and how well things are going at the various EPs at any given time. When some of these "national backbones" are advertising a total of 5 or six nets, how practical is this? It's easier to static route them and forget about it. - BGP peering sessions cost money. Few people seem to understand this. All routers from all manufacturers have some practical limit to how many BGP sessions they can support while simultaneously forwarding packets. (In fact, one manufacturer recommends that you use a router solely as a router server to maintain sessions and feed forwarding info to other routers in order to allow them to concentrate on forwarding packets.) Every time you have to put in a new router to manage BGP sessions that don't generate revenue and don't forward packets, you have to try and figure out if it's economically worthwhile. - The exchange points have become impractical for the largest players; it's just too hard to diagnose performance problems between two nets when there's a piece neither of them controls in between. Thus we have private interconnects. Private interconnects are circuitwise inexpensive when the two nets are in the same POP already, but not when actual local loops are involved. Also, a private interconnect requires a high speed port which costs real money on each end. You want to get your money's worth out of each one of those ports, which means it needs fairly high utilitization to be justified; a DS3 port moving 2Mpbs is not justifiable. So network interconnection is an issue of both practicality and economics. - So, in order to provide the best service possible to their customers, the largest nets have gone to private interconnects amongst themselves. This means that they now have these expensive connections to the various exchange points which they maintain in order to move a small percentage of their total exchange traffic. Again, this can appear economically questionable. Every one of these nets wants to become and stay profitable, and the way to do it is to reduce unnecessary fixed/recurring costs whereever possible. People who've not directly worked on or managed a heavily loaded net may not appreciate everything I've said. -peter
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Geoff Mulligan wrote:
Does anyone have a pointer to an article about this?
You can find a collection of news items at: http://www.clark.net/pub/rbenn/debate.html Randy Benn
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 06:43:08AM -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote:
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
Actually, it could become about not buying from MFS/Worldcom/UUNET. It just became that way for MCSNet, for example. Vote with your wallets. Both parties get equal value out of a peering exchange. The originating site got paid by their customer, and the terminating side got paid by theirs. Trying to extort money to peer is exactly that - extortion. The argument about national backbones costing money is a red herring. OF COURSE they cost money. But they open business markets to you that are otherwise closed - being able to sell in multiple cities without the customer having to backhaul on their own, VPNs across geographical areas, etc. If you don't like the price:performance balance of that equation, then you shouldn't build one. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
The argument about national backbones costing money is a red herring. OF COURSE they cost money. But they open business markets to you that are otherwise closed - being able to sell in multiple cities without the customer having to backhaul on their own, VPNs across geographical areas, etc. If you don't like the price:performance balance of that equation, then you shouldn't build one.
Well, this goes into "cutting off peers means your customers can't access mine." There's two problems with this: First, the key point is YOU can't access THEIRS without buying transit. Most ISPs aren't gonna permit this loss of connectivity and will buy transit.. it just won't be from the company that pulls the plug. Lets also note who its gonna hurt more.. the company with fewer customer sites that need to get accessed. The complaint ratio between the two groups are gonna be wholly lopsided. The smaller ISP will receive far more complaints than the larger one. In my view, whats being proposed has more or less been in the works for quite a while. Because of the customer's demands for 100% connectivity, there's not a whole lot to stand in the way. And as long as MFS/UUNET/WorldCom run the two biggest exchange points (and are thus getting paid exorbatant amounce for connectivity INTO that NAP -- thus making it so you really pay *3* times for a packet to cross the network -- along with various customer circuits into that NAP because of the "near exit" -- making it actually 4 times if you consider loop charges), there's no reason it can't continue. If it happens, it happens. And chances are that these peering fees will be quite high. For the big guys to buy from each other, the fees will more or less balance out. For those that depend on the peering, they'll have to bite the bullet and pay the fees. For those who can't afford the fees, they'll have to look for cheap transit (and possibly degraded service as a result). I doubt there will be any who can't afford transit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Engineering Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 09:56:38AM -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
The argument about national backbones costing money is a red herring. OF COURSE they cost money. But they open business markets to you that are otherwise closed - being able to sell in multiple cities without the customer having to backhaul on their own, VPNs across geographical areas, etc. If you don't like the price:performance balance of that equation, then you shouldn't build one.
Well, this goes into "cutting off peers means your customers can't access mine." There's two problems with this: First, the key point is YOU can't access THEIRS without buying transit. Most ISPs aren't gonna permit this loss of connectivity and will buy transit.. it just won't be from the company that pulls the plug. Lets also note who its gonna hurt more.. the company with fewer customer sites that need to get accessed. The complaint ratio between the two groups are gonna be wholly lopsided. The smaller ISP will receive far more complaints than the larger one.
That sounds like extortion and a violation of the Sherman Act. Someone ought to look into this. I note that violations of the Sherman Act are criminal as well as civil matters, and if done in collusion (and lock-step changes in policy by "competitors" are one of the tests for this) you can even raise a RICO charge.
In my view, whats being proposed has more or less been in the works for quite a while. Because of the customer's demands for 100% connectivity, there's not a whole lot to stand in the way. And as long as MFS/UUNET/WorldCom run the two biggest exchange points (and are thus getting paid exorbatant amounce for connectivity INTO that NAP -- thus making it so you really pay *3* times for a packet to cross the network -- along with various customer circuits into that NAP because of the "near exit" -- making it actually 4 times if you consider loop charges), there's no reason it can't continue.
There's a fix for this. Set up another peering point. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/ Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
In message <199705021656.JAA25880@typo.org>, Wayne Bouchard writes:
The argument about national backbones costing money is a red herring. OF COURSE they cost money. But they open business markets to you that are otherwise closed - being able to sell in multiple cities without the custome r having to backhaul on their own, VPNs across geographical areas, etc. If yo u don't like the price:performance balance of that equation, then you shouldn' t build one.
Well, this goes into "cutting off peers means your customers can't access mine." There's two problems with this: First, the key point is YOU can't access THEIRS without buying transit. Most ISPs aren't gonna permit this loss of connectivity and will buy transit.. it just won't be from the company that pulls the plug. Lets also note who its gonna hurt more.. the company with fewer customer sites that need to get accessed. The complaint ratio between the two groups are gonna be wholly lopsided. The smaller ISP will receive far more complaints than the larger one.
In my view, whats being proposed has more or less been in the works for quite a while. Because of the customer's demands for 100% connectivity, there's not a whole lot to stand in the way. And as long as MFS/UUNET/WorldCom run the two biggest exchange points (and are thus getting paid exorbatant amounce for connectivity INTO that NAP -- thus making it so you really pay *3* times for a packet to cross the network -- along with various customer circuits into that NAP because of the "near exit" -- making it actually 4 times if you consider loop charges), there's no reason it can't continue. If it happens, it happens. And chances are that these peering fees will be quite high. For the big guys to buy from each other, the fees will more or less balance out. For those that depend on the peering, they'll have to bite the bullet and pay the fees. For those who can't afford the fees, they'll have to look for cheap transit (and possibly degraded service as a result). I doubt there will be any who can't afford transit.
Based on the models I've run, the cost of peering should work out to a charge based on the cost of transit/ratio of customer networks/ non customer networks for the "larger ISP", i.e.: ISP A charges 60,000/month for a DS3, say the announce as customers 20% of global routeable IP, thus peering charges should be about 1/5 of that $60,000, or $12,000. Assuming ISP B charges $2000/month for a T-1, and announcies about .1% of global routeable IP space, or $2/month. So net cash flow between A and B is about $11,998/month. This doesn't include local loop charges, port charges, or the issue of different network design may result in different costs of peering. If the provider charges $20,000/month for DS3, then somewhere on the order of $4000/month would be a reasonable peering charge. At some point charges between differently sized networks will happen as the cost structures have to be balanced or it will not be viable in the long run. However that doesn't meen that NDAs and outrages peering charges are justifable. And if people use an exchange point and a route server, the costs of peering for large national providers could be reduced, and provide their customers better service, and be compensated for their real costs to do peering. All of the information to do the cost calculations is publicly available information, and unless some large ISPs are not being held to the same 80% utilization standard, (AGIS anyone?), then there isn't any real market distortion by using routable IP addresses. And its a lot easier than counting aggregate packet flows. If worse comes to worse, some large national provider will institute a policy similar and the rest will face the Net99/CIX scenario all over again. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
On Fri, 2 May 1997, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
Well, this goes into "cutting off peers means your customers can't access mine." There's two problems with this: First, the key point is YOU can't access THEIRS without buying transit. Most ISPs aren't gonna permit this loss of connectivity and will buy transit.. it just won't
The problem is that if you buy transit you may be in violation of other peering agreements that say your routes can not be viewed from any other AS. Even if you were able to keep people like BBN and MCI to peer after you had transit setup, who are you going to get it from? If you pick Sprint, MCI, ANS, BBN, etc you will then not be able to peer with them. This is sad, because I and other have spent millions on our networks to build a DS3/OC3 network and connect to all the NAPs. Now that we have done that we have people like uunet who have been peering with us for years saying bye bye.
be from the company that pulls the plug. Lets also note who its gonna hurt more... the company with fewer customer sites that need to get accessed. The complaint ratio between the two groups are gonna be wholly lopsided. The smaller ISP will receive far more complaints than the larger one.
Depends on the traffic flow, I.E. I have MUCH more traffic going from my network to uunet then my customer getting info from uunet. We don't do a lot of dialup or types of access that suck from other providers. The other providers like uunet are all getting more traffic then they are sending. Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phone (888)NetRail NetRail, Inc. Fax (404)522-1939 230 Peachtree Suite 500 WWW http://www.netrail.net/ Atlanta, GA 30303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. - Psalm 33:16
At 10:42 AM 5/2/97 -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
Trying to extort money to peer is exactly that - extortion.
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
I asked our telecommunications attorney, who bats 1000 in such matters, about the issues involved. His reply:
The action is probably anticompetitive. The problem is that the anti-trust laws are so hard, costly and time-consuming to enforce in civil matters, and for criminal you must get the state or federal authorities interested.
To obtain relief you have to show intent and ability to monopolize. This is not a price squeeze -- to the contrary. You have to show concerted action. Market power. Damages.
Notwithstanding my statement above about the authorities, I'd recommend all who are concerned go to the justice department and seek an investigation. That or even the threat often mitigates behavior.
Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500 Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct line 903-870-0365 bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551 Member of TISPA and ISP/C pager 903-867-6571
At 06:43 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote:
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.
Explain to me how it is cheaper to pay UUNET for a full DS3 from Boston-Washington, Wasington to Chicago, Washington to San Jose, Chicago to San Jose, Washington to NYC at $60,000 each not including telco or transit. Than it is to pay a telco alone for just the lines? I'd love to see how the numbers work out on that! If your plan is to sell connectivity nationwide or semi-nationwide it is absurdly more expensive to use UUNET than to do it yourself. Yes, if you are a local ISP and never intend to sell anything outside of your area, it -MIGHT- possibly be cheaper. However, at $60,000 per DS3 circuit not including telco/transit as opposed to even a $25,000 WorldComm circuit -END TO END- I still don't see how the math works, unless you are a UUNET reseller which wouldn't explain why you are building a network yourself. ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com
According to several news reports I read on Monday/Tuesday, UUNet & The WELL kissed & made up. Is this no longer the casse? BTW, you can read about the David Hollub saga at: http://www.news.com:80/News/Item/0,4,10247,00.html Randy Benn Gordon Cook wrote:
I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of the well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well, is now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have to **sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET or simply be cut off.
I first heard an opaque reference to this from a nationally known figure a couple of months ago. In the last 10 days I have heard separately and privately from three different people one of whom is directly affected. I asked him to call me. He never did. Now I think I understand why. Hughes said that David (?) Hollub who is responsible for the Well's connectivity and has just been fired by Bruce Katz the well's owner has revealed in a well conference what UUNET is doing and that the story made it into the wall street journal today.
I will be sending Hughes a summary understanding of what I think this means that he will post on the Well inviting national journalists to call me for whatever information/insight I can give them into the story. I would especially like to begin hearing from those directly affected. Please detail very precisely what restrictions you place on the information you send me.
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?
At 10:46 PM 01-05-97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who?
Gordon; In my view, UUNET and PSI were the second to try to put the Big Squeeze on, with the CIX filtering incident with the original "settlements" squeeze that ANS tried to perpetrate on the NSFNET regionals as the historic first. The CIX filtering idea was that the smaller ISPs should be forced to pay a $10k fee in the hope that they might be encouraged to buy transit instead. Sprint forced the issue by welcoming the smaller ISP market while MCI waffled, UUNET said "No way", and PSI said "It depends". Then along comes Net99 and the backbone market blows wide open and now everyone resells bandwidth. Not good for the big backbones. When UUNET says "sure we'll peer with you, but we don't need no stinkin' contract" and when MCI and others will sign a contract but only for a year, what do you expect to happen someday? Pretty clever about the NDA -- it kept the lid on for over a month. Backbones are expensive, but hard to value to the customer. Bandwidth resale leaves too much margin for small ISPs to make money, in the view of the backbone providers. The market can't support thirty-five separate backbones, even were they all to be "MFS-no-money-down" instant backbones, as I sometimes think they are. :-) Sooner or later, the Big Squeeze will work. If not now, then next year. If your business plan competes head-to-head with a facilities-based ISP, then you'd better think hard about how to change it, because there just aren't going to be that many facilities-based ISPs in future. --Kent
At 10:46 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of the well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well, is now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have to **sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET or simply be cut off.
Now how pathetic is this? UUNET one of the original pioneers of the Commercial Internet, one of the Flagships of open systems, standards, and connectivity now wants to extort money from other networks for peering? As if they don't make enough money. Gee wouldn't it really suck for all of UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET peering? Gee they couldn't download any Microsoft products anymore! True, UUNET is big, true they have many good sites and on-line resources for customers. But, they are not so good that they deserve some mega-high price for the honor of accessing their customers. After all, why do you need a confidentiality agreement if your prices are reasonable? Put a gag-order on people from complaining about pricing... This is also practically extortion. "Yes, we are peers, we have already decided that our customers and yours would benefit, but YOU and YOUR customers should pay to access ours...." Maybe everyone should pull out of peering with UUNET and tell them they need to pay US to peer. Just my $0.02 I am all for a commercial Internet, but this takes it WAY to far for my tastes. At least true telecom carriers are regulated in what they can charge for interconnects by the FCC or another governmental body in their own country. Sheesh.. Send all flames to: dev@null.com ------------------------------------------------- Matthew E. Pearson Vice President of Development Games-Online Inc. http://www.games-online.com
Well, the thing to do here is simple. If you are a UUNet customer bitch at them and bitch loud. Customers are the people they will listen to...no matter how much we decrease the S/N ratio on NANOG I doubt they will listen to non-customers posting to NANOG. Call your UUNet sales rep and inform him/her you would like to terminate your contract. Tell him/her you signed that contract under the assumption that UUNet would peer equally with all networks meeting a minimum standard for NAPs connected to, backbone bandwidth, etc. Make it very clear you will not tolerate your connectivity becoming worse because of UUNet dropping peering. Obviously discussions with sales reps. has little to do with NANOG. I don't think this really becomes an operations issue until someone says "no" to UUNet. And you thought the DNS was going to fracture the 'net... Bradley Dunn -- Why can't you be a non-conformist like everyone else? On Fri, 2 May 1997, Matthew E. Pearson wrote:
Now how pathetic is this? UUNET one of the original pioneers of the Commercial Internet, one of the Flagships of open systems, standards, and connectivity now wants to extort money from other networks for peering? As if they don't make enough money. Gee wouldn't it really suck for all of UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET peering? Gee they couldn't download any Microsoft products anymore! True, UUNET is big, true they have many good sites and on-line resources for customers. But, they are not so good that they deserve some mega-high price for the honor of accessing their customers. After all, why do you need a confidentiality agreement if your prices are reasonable? Put a gag-order on people from complaining about pricing...
Oh hell. I was just explaining to my boss last week how none of these NSPs trust each other and so that's why all these packets have to cross the country twice to get 20 miles down the road etc etc and now if UUNET is pulling peers then he's _really_ going to have my head. Several questions: 1 - What is the point of the NDA? Is the NDA precedented? 2 - Are they pulling CIX peering? (Can that rtr get any more overloaded? :) 3 - One of my upstream providers claims that Sprint pulled peering abruptly on them this morning without any warning and is now charging them $X (where X is a large number) to peer. Has this happened to anyone else, is it a Sprint policy to always charge for new peers, etc? Thanks, -Tung-Hui Hu hhui@arcfour.com
participants (16)
-
Bradley Dunn -
Geoff Mulligan -
Gordon Cook -
Hui-Hui Hu -
Jeremiah Kristal -
Jeremy Porter -
Karl Denninger -
Kent W. England -
Larry_Vaden＠texoma.net -
Matthew E. Pearson -
Nathan Stratton -
Peter -
Randall S. Benn -
rbenn＠clark.net
-
Stephen Balbach -
Wayne Bouchard