Re: Ungodly packet loss rates

[Rod Nayfield]

Gordon Cook wrote:
> now you may say that from a competitive point of view this makes no
> difference.  perhaps.  But what if the big four no longer see the need to
> upgrade their bandwidth INTO and OUT OF exchange points?  what happens to
> the "secondary ten" when they get some large customers who see their
> packects die between Sprints mae east router and the nearest sprint
> backbone POP if that pipe is over crowded.  Will we hear them complain
> about ungodly packet loss and move to the industrial strength service of
> the big four who can do hot potato hand offs to each other at multiple
> private exchanges around the US and increasingly around the world?  if
> such is the case, how will the secondary ten ever get enough customers to
> convince the top four to let them do private exchanges as well?
> 
> Is this part of an inevitable dynamic that is and will channel market
> share into the hands of the top four? 

Gordon - You're describing the dilemma of any newcomers to the net: 
Assuming that the new net can get peering agreements at the public ix's
(this in itself is not easily assumed) there is still an uphill battle.  

.  If you don't have private interconnects, your traffic goes over the
90% avg. utilized links between the IX point and the large provider's
backbone.  This makes it difficult to get and keep customers - after
all, 75% of the internet is lossy/slow to them, and if they switch to
any of the larger providers they don't see that loss.

.  You can't get a private interconnect with another provider unless you
have the traffic (customers) to justify it.  See previous point as to
why you can't get the customers.


Interesting points.

Rod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -