Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them with charging under non-disclosure?
UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET peering?
Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something like ''networks of equal size''. The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer. --Peter
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote: |} Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something |} like ''networks of equal size''. |} |} The internet is moving towards a scenario with a handfull global |} players that will be ''peers'' everyone else will become a customer. It doesn't necessarily equate to networks of equal size, but of equal value. Value can be obtained by managing a large network, having a large consumer base, or having a significant amount of content. All things are not created equal and the various "values" have to be weighed to determine what a peer is, or is not. Alot of pipes going nowhere with no users has no value. Alot of content without any pipes also has no value as no users can gain access to it. -jh-
On Sat, 3 May 1997, Peter Lothberg wrote:
UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had UUNET peering?
Look up ''peer'' in a dictionary, in this context it means something like ''networks of equal size''.
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their network. 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
On Sat, May 03, 1997 at 09:11:55PM -0400, Nathan Stratton wrote:
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their network.
Okay. How much traffic do you pass over your network? Alec -- +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ |Alec Peterson - ahp@hilander.com | Erols Internet Services, INC. | |Network Engineer | Springfield, VA. | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
Yes, but what is this measurement? 1 and 5 Mb/s? 10 and 50 Mb/s?
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their network.
Are you saying the UU should pay you for peering?
Or, it could be looked at as equal amounts of traffic. Right now uunet pulls 5 times as much data from my network as my customers pull from their network.
This same argument comes up every time! We all wish there could be nice clean technical criteria but there isn't any way to measure *value* except by asking the customers, which in practice seems to be done by unplugging the links and seeing who gets more complaints. Attempts to require X network size are just a crude way to codify the size "large enough that *my* customers will be unhappy if I'm not able to reach you". The value of connectivity from UUNET to any given network -- i.e., the desire of UUNET customers to reach ISP-X customers minus the desire of ISP-X customers to reach UUNET customers -- varies widely in magnitude and even sign, so I think it's reasonable of them to negotiate the number on a case-by-case basis instead of only free peering or else paid transit from the price schedule. Everyone seems to be upset because the outcome is uncertain, less clear-cut than the status quo. But if you think about it, there are many cases in which the value *almost* justifies free peering, and if a bit of cash exchanges hands then the table tilts -- in favor of better connectivity for everyone. And I'm sure the NDA is just to avoid ISP-X whining "why should we pay $N when ISP-Y didn't pay nearly that much" and the subsequent explanation that ISP-Y adds value by hosting Very Popular Site. They could explain this n^2 times, or they could just require NDAs. There will be less gossip-fighting in the latter case. It cannot be a case of an evil giant trying to dominate the industry because UUNET isn't so big that they can sway the entire business model singlehandledly. UUNET must have set this policy because they feel it's in their interest. And I can see their point. It *does* make sense. -- Shields, CrossLink. [neither customer nor peer]
participants (6)
-
Alec H. Peterson -
Alex Rubenstein -
Jonathan Heiliger -
Nathan Stratton -
Peter Lothberg -
shields＠crosslink.net