"Daniel Golding" <dgolding@sockeye.com> writes:
One is, Sprint won't peer with you. I'm not even sure who you work for, but rest assured, they will not peer with you. Time spent on this might be better utilized reading some of Bill Norton's excellent intro to peering
Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in: 1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status then I am sure things can happen. Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become crystal clear. vijay "time to put back the peer in peering" gill
At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
then I am sure things can happen.
Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become crystal clear.
Not trying to start a "peering" debate, but I do believe there are benefits to peering with networks which are not your "equal", in both directions. OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of many countries. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that peering or not is good for long term economic viability. I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other reasons to close your peering policy. Fortunately, there are few regulations, so most networks may peer with whomever they please - equal or otherwise.
vijay "time to put back the peer in peering" gill
And to think you used to work for Above.Net.... -- TTFN, patrick
On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
At 05:28 PM 6/28/2002 +0000, Vijay Gill wrote:
Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
then I am sure things can happen.
Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become crystal clear.
Not trying to start a "peering" debate, but I do believe there are benefits to peering with networks which are not your "equal", in both directions.
OTOH, some networks who peered with anyone and everyone did not survive. While some networks who peered with no one have also died. (And some who peer with no one just over-report EBITDA by more than the GNP of many countries. :-) So I am not sure there is any strong evidence that peering or not is good for long term economic viability.
I doubt peering for a large "tier 1" is directly affecting their economic state, they will see all networks via peers with their fellow "tier 1" networks and peering further downstream isnt going to alter cost..
I do believe there is operational evidence that a more open peering policy can reduce latency to off-net locations, but I am sure there are other reasons to close your peering policy.
I think this is the key point. Its common sense that peering with the downstreams will improve user quality of service by both reducing latency and taking unnecessary points of failure out of the network. Steve
On 28 Jun 2002, Vijay Gill wrote:
"Daniel Golding" <dgolding@sockeye.com> writes:
One is, Sprint won't peer with you. I'm not even sure who you work for, but rest assured, they will not peer with you. Time spent on this might be better utilized reading some of Bill Norton's excellent intro to peering
Dan, if you are a peer of sprint and I use the word peer as in:
1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
then I am sure things can happen.
Yeah, right. This is complete nonsense. Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage. If you mean equal as in within an order a magnitude of 10 larger or smaller, then you cover most of their peers.
Keeping the above definition of peering in mind, and not the current accepted definition of what "peering" means, things suddenly become crystal clear.
This is ridiculous elitism. You don't need to pretend that all of Sprint's peers are "equal" in order to make sense of their peering policy, just accept the fact that each company has policies that they believe to be in their best interests and omit the pretense of justifying this by the movement of heavenly bodies in the spheres. While you are at it look up the definition of equal. Mike. +------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | mleber@he.net http://www.he.net | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
participants (4)
-
Mike Leber -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Stephen J. Wilcox -
Vijay Gill