| Won't this just increase the distance and AS count for Exodus outbound traffic, | making Exodus hosting even less desirable? Only in the minds of people who are lied to by Exodus's detractors. I just spoke with the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, and it signed (in BSL, so the translation may be off) the following: Usage-based billing: less performance -> less traffic -> lower bill. C&W surely does not want to present a lower bill to you, and thus may be motivated to figure out and correct what's going on. Exodus's customers moving less traffic could take a (hypothetical!) smaller bill to mean unpopular/stale content, or poor performance, possibly near the end user, possibly near the on-Exodus source; if the latter is suspected, distribute the content to elsewhere. (If the former, tell all the politicos you can to stop protecting local-loop monopolists!) A (hypothetical!) larger bill could likewise be taken as either increasingly popular content, or as better performance. A _correlation_ with a change in Exodus's routing policy is not the only possible cause -- someone elsewhere may have done something to widen an intermediate bottleneck. Remember that the AS path is only a trail of breadcrumbs used to avoid route-announcement loops. It is NOT a reliable indicator of the forwarding path towards the destination. An AS-to-AS "adjacency" within an AS path *may* be completely meaningless. You can draw no conclusions about performance (in terms of loss, delay, and delay variance) by examining an AS path, although someone might prove that for a given snapshot, from a given test location, there are strong correlations. Likewise, while from one particular vantage point, a "broader" peering policy correlates with better performance (in terms of things which actually affect goodput, namely loss/delay/delay variance), from other vantage points, there is an opposite correlation. This is not anything remotely like a proof that strict routing and forwarding hierarchy leads to better performance than relaxed routing and forwarding hierarchy, with respect to how traffic is attracted towards a given destination. (Note that one can have strict routing hierarchy, yet still observe a relaxed forwarding hierarchy: consider the case where people do not next-hop-self at LAN-style exchange points). Therefore, anyone predicting that the sky is falling, and big chunks are gonna hit Exodus's customers and C&W (or predicting something opposite) would be lying if he or she claimed to have a better view of the future of this peering policy change than the average employee of the psychic friends network. Sean.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sean M. Doran wrote:
Only in the minds of people who are lied to by Exodus's detractors.
I just spoke with the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, and it signed (in BSL, so the translation may be off) the following:
AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to C&W since they bought AS3561. Why isn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand rewarding C&W? Is C&W number 5 or 6 these days?
(If the former, tell all the politicos you can to stop protecting local-loop monopolists!)
Another case of a person thinking that business 101 does not apply to them - repeat after me "Natural monopolies are normal in cerain environments, where univeral service is required". Majority of those companies that based their business plans on ignoring this rather well known fact already die, both in the United States and in Europe are dead. Alex
participants (3)
-
alex@yuriev.com
-
Sean Donelan
-
smd@clock.org