In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them) --Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5 DgN/l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP. Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is nothing. Deepak Jain AiNET -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/ l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if - connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway Mike.
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing", "dropping OC48 to IXs". Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway.... Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones.. Steve On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.
Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is nothing.
Deepak Jain AiNET
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+v5DgN/ l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty. Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere
in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway
Mike.
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:47:36AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing", "dropping OC48 to IXs".
Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway....
Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones..
It's all so much posturing, just like the people who claim they need OC768 now or any time in the near future, or the people who sell 1Mbps customers on the fact that their OC192 links are important. If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting the traffic only once through the system) going through the US backbones I'd be very surprised. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
RAS> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400 RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen RAS> If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting RAS> the traffic only once through the system) going through the RAS> US backbones I'd be very surprised. Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level. (I need to start pumping more traffic to catch up to my personal fair share!) Interesting point. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
My math shows ~500bps per US citizen: Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens. --Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of E.B. Dreger Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:21 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy RAS> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400 RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen RAS> If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting the RAS> traffic only once through the system) going through the US RAS> backbones I'd be very surprised. Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level. (I need to start pumping more traffic to catch up to my personal fair share!) Interesting point. Eddy -- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
I switch traffic measured in gbits, and everything is kept on private peering at the moment (although that is likely to change in the not-too-distant future). I doubt I will push more than 200 on the public exchange I am thinking of joining... Many public exchanges either feature few large carriers, or large carriers that would not be interested in peering with you, unless you are a Fortune 500. --Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Wilcox Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 7:48 PM To: Deepak Jain Cc: Miquel van Smoorenburg; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Sprint peering policy I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing", "dropping OC48 to IXs". Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs anyway.... Did someone mention large bandwidths and everyone else felt they needed to use similar figures or is everyone really switching that amount but just hiding it well in private peerings? I know theres some big networks on this list but theres a lot more small ones.. Steve On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Deepak Jain wrote:
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions
disappear. A large ISPs fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.
Regional routes for a Joe Six Pack ISP are not going to represent a significant enough level of traffic (1-2,5,10mb/s?) for a large network to waste management time on. Heck, DNS servers use more than 2mb/s of bandwidth nowadays (for medium sized networks and above). A few megabits a second is nothing.
Deepak Jain AiNET
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Miquel van Smoorenburg Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 3:42 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
In article <cistron.!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAA/zNkI7d3EEmn3+ v5DgN/ l8KAAAAQAAAADJAemGHjDECnen8+YjBFaQEAAAAA@isprime.com>, Phil Rosenthal <pr@isprime.com> wrote:
Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer, they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to.
They gain absolutely nothing from it, and the small ISPs gain plenty.
Wcom's costs only increase since they need "more ports".
Wcom could peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP" at an exchange if
- connection cost is very low (shared ethernet) - they don't peer with Joe's upstream at the same location - they only announce regional routes to Joe - they use hot potato routing everywhere
in that case, the peering would just be local/regional, probably all that Joe is after anyway
Mike.
participants (6)
-
Deepak Jain -
E.B. Dreger -
Miquel van Smoorenburg -
Phil Rosenthal -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Stephen J. Wilcox