Original message <9605110249.AA04557@wisdom.home.vix.com> From: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com> Date: May 10, 19:49 Subject: Re: Worldly Thoughts
Quite a few CIX members operate this way. The interesting question in my mind is whether the "big guys" (defaultless nets, for the purposes of this discussion) think that this represents unfair competition or not. -- End of excerpt from Paul A Vixie
This is a _very_ interesting question in light of what I just posted... the CIX has the (odd, these days) feature that peering is mandatory for all, and so large providers don't get to choose whether or not they want to haul traffic across the country for these people. -matthew kaufman matthew@scruz.net ps. We'd already be at CIX if certain providers had more than a T-1's worth of bandwidth available out of there, specifically to take advantage of the "mandatory peering" situation. Heavily-loaded small pipes to interesting places aren't useful, though.
This is a _very_ interesting question in light of what I just posted... the CIX has the (odd, these days) feature that peering is mandatory for all, and so large providers don't get to choose whether or not they want to haul traffic across the country for these people.
There is no such thing as mandatory peering. Several folks on the SMDS cloud purposely do not peer with certain other folks on the same cloud. Everybody peers with the CIX routers, though, and with third-party BGP routes that means most traffic is just point to point. (The SMDS access lists are not perfect, so there are some in-and-out cases for various endpoint pairs.)
ps. We'd already be at CIX if certain providers had more than a T1's worth of bandwidth available out of there, specifically to take advantage of the "mandatory peering" situation. Heavily-loaded small pipes to interesting places aren't useful, though.
The link you're alluding to is probably SprintLink's. It runs at or near capacity for most of every day, and while that's usually an indicator that a larger pipe is called for, it's also an indicator that the link is of use to at least some folks.
mk@skruz: ] > ps. We'd already be at CIX if certain providers had more than a T1's worth ] > of bandwidth available out of there, specifically to take advantage of the ] > "mandatory peering" situation. Heavily-loaded small pipes to interesting ] > places aren't useful, though. vix: ] The link you're alluding to is probably SprintLink's. It runs at or near ] capacity for most of every day, and while that's usually an indicator that ] a larger pipe is called for, it's also an indicator that the link is of use ] to at least some folks. The interesting thing here is to ask WHY SL hasn't upgraded the line. The fact that the line hasn't been upgraded could imply that the CIX isn't of use to SL. -alan
vix: ] The link you're alluding to is probably SprintLink's. It runs at or near ] capacity for most of every day, and while that's usually an indicator that ] a larger pipe is called for, it's also an indicator that the link is of use ] to at least some folks.
The interesting thing here is to ask WHY SL hasn't upgraded the line.
I've been told that they consider the T1 adequate.
The fact that the line hasn't been upgraded could imply that the CIX isn't of use to SL.
When the link went down due to a cross connect problem, an engineer and his manager inside SL worked all day and most of a night to get it restored.
vix: ] The link you're alluding to is probably SprintLink's. It runs at or near ] capacity for most of every day, and while that's usually an indicator that ] a larger pipe is called for, it's also an indicator that the link is of use ] to at least some folks.
The interesting thing here is to ask WHY SL hasn't upgraded the line.
I've been told that they consider the T1 adequate.
The fact that the line hasn't been upgraded could imply that the CIX isn't of use to SL.
When the link went down due to a cross connect problem, an engineer and his manager inside SL worked all day and most of a night to get it restored.
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a major cross connect between many providers and Sprint? CRL comes to mind. Rob
[keep in mind that it's been over 18 months since I was a CRL employee] Robert writes:
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a major cross connect between many providers and Sprint? CRL comes to mind.
CRL is also at MAE-W and the NAP, I would presume peering with Sprint at those locations as well as at CIX. It might be useful to compare lists of who's at CIX and at MAE-W and PB-NAP and see who's CIX-only, but I doubt CRL would be on that list. I could be wrong, though... -george william herbert gherbert@crl.com Most Assuredly Not speaking for CRL
CRL is at Mae-W, the NAP and Mae-east (to the best of my knowledge, as we peer with them at those locs). It is my understanding that Sprint wouldn't initiate peering with them for one reason or another (I don't want to touch that issue). So CRL is using the CIX soley to reach Sprint, as well as Sprint to reach CRL. There are a few other NSPs that are in a similar boat with CIX/Sprint to the best of my knowledge. Rob
[keep in mind that it's been over 18 months since I was a CRL employee]
Robert writes:
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it is a major cross connect between many providers and Sprint? CRL comes to mind.
CRL is also at MAE-W and the NAP, I would presume peering with Sprint at those locations as well as at CIX. It might be useful to compare lists of who's at CIX and at MAE-W and PB-NAP and see who's CIX-only, but I doubt CRL would be on that list. I could be wrong, though...
-george william herbert gherbert@crl.com Most Assuredly Not speaking for CRL
participants (5)
-
Alan Hannan -
George Herbert -
matthew＠scruz.net -
Paul A Vixie -
Robert Bowman