North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BBN Peering issues (fwd)
- From: Curt Howland
- Date: Mon Aug 17 15:49:05 1998
Good greaf, Bradley, who pissed in your cheerios?
> > The 'Net gives some measure of universal connectivity because it
> > was driven at its root by engineering. Who on NANOG, with any real
> > world experience in networking, denies that maximum open peering
> > benefits everyone?
> You are missing the point entirely. We are not in some idyllic
> r&d environment where j.random hacker gets to play with his
> new ip router and maybe even connect two computers together.
> We are motivated by profit. If a certain position can maximize
> the profits of a company, it will rationally move towards
> that position.
It will be interesting to watch what happens. Yes, charging
for peering, except of course with real "Peers" such as the
top 5 other networks period, will ensure that either there
are only 5 networks after a while, or that the customers of
those that try to charge for peering go elsewhere.
Yes, it will be "interesting."
> You play engineering and revenue as a dichotomy when in fact
> it is a duality.
Nay, good sir, I specifically stated that open peering benefits
everyone. I mean benefit in that everyone gets to talk to everyone
else, and those customers for whom bandwidth or latency are
major factors will pay premium networks for that extra umph.
...just like now. I don't see CNN homing their web site on
GeoCities, even though it would cost less...
> In the "real world" that you like to refer
> to, it is more of a symbiotic relationship. Though it would
> be nice to be aloof in a lab and be lavishly compensated, I would
> venture to say that such a situation is not the norm.
Again, it is exactly that symbiotic relationship which I
refer to. It is the symbiotic relationship which will fail
when one component becomes so self-important that it defends
itself from illusional dangers to the exclusion of all else.
Profit, for profits sake, does not engender quality.
> Let us get one point understood. You deserve nothing more than
> you pay for. You were not, by merit of your diction, infrastructure,
> prowess, or mandate from heaven, conferred a right to the
> resources of another individual or conglomeration of individuals.
It was my impression that connectivity customers paid by the
bandwidth they wanted, or used, and that web hosting customers
pay by the bandwidth they wanted, or used.
If one or the other cannot get to the market they wish to,
only one power can keep them from going to another provider
> If you abhor these paper-pushers so, you are more than able to
> find the capitalisation to finance a global altruistic
> network where anyone can peer with anyone and we will all get along.
Too late. What, did you think I hadn't already thought of
> It will be akin to the communes of the 60s. We can just
> hallucinate until the reality evaporates.
My oh my, it must have been an *interesting* bowl of